Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

KING'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS).

THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-HOLD (Mr. Grimston) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:

I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

CONVERSATIONS.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether the arrangements made at Munich for a continuance of conversations between this country and Germany with a view to furthering the policy of appeasement were in any way contingent upon this country not increasing or accelerating its re-armament programme; and whether any meeting between members of the British and German Governments to discuss appeasement is contemplated in the near future?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it to be understood that His Majesty's Government intend to pursue their policy of appeasement, while pressing on in every possible way with the acceleration of the re-armament programme?

ARMY (DEMOBILISATION).

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to the demobilisation of the

German Army; and whether he will state what degree of demobilisation has taken place since the end of September?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): While my Noble Friend has no official information on this subject, there is good reason to believe that the German Army is now at peace strength and that the reservists specially called up have been released.

Mr. MacMillan: Can the Minister inform the House exactly what is the source of that information?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Do the Government base their policy of good faith and reason upon unofficial information?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman must realise that the Government information is sound.

Mr. MacMillan: Will the hon. Gentleman, in the interests of good relations and good faith between this country and Germany, try to procure information from official German sources?

Mr. Butler: I appreciate the hon. Member's interest in the matter. He may take it that the information which I have given him is correct.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is there any difficulty in the way of inquiring from German authorities whether they have or have not carried out demobilisation?

Mr. Butler: Perhaps the hon. Member will do me the honour of reading my answer. From it he will see the information I have given, for which I take the responsibility.

ANTI-BRITISH PROPAGANDA.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the anti-British propaganda now being carried on in Germany through the medium of agencies under the direct control of the German Government; that charges are being made against His Majesty's Government of permitting acts of terrorism in India and Palestine; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Mr. Lipson: asked the Prime Minister what is being done to counteract the propaganda that is being carried on in. Germany against Great Britain?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first two parts of the question by the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. Henderson) is in the affirmative. The German Government will be well aware of the unfortunate effect of such articles on Anglo-German relations, and my Noble Friend does not consider that it is necessary to draw their attention to this fact.

PRESS REPRESENTATIVES (RECEPTION, LONDON).

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Prime Minister for what reason His Majesty's Government issued invitations to meet representatives of the German Press at the Carlton Hotel on Tuesday, 15th November; and whether Government Hospitality Fund money was used for this purpose?

Mr. Butler: Arrangements were made some time ago for a small reception to be held on 15th November for a party consisting of officials from German Government departments and economic correspondents of various German newspapers, who recently visited London. The cost was defrayed by the Government Hospitality Fund. In view of the hospitality frequently shown by the German Government to parties of visitors from this country, and in view of the practice of His Majesty's Government in extending hospitality to distinguished foreign visitors, the holding of this small reception scarcely requires justification.

Miss Wilkinson: While accepting the Minister's apology, may I ask whether in view of the circumstances in Germany last week, it was really in the best of taste to continue with this particular act of hospitality?

Mr. Shinwell: What was the nature of the conversations which took place at this function?

Mr. Butler: I am sure they were very interesting.

Mr. Shinwell: If they were interesting, could the House not be informed of them?

DAMAGE TO PROPERTY (JEWISH-BRITISH SUBJECTS).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister what reply has been received from the German Government to the British note concerning damage to the property of Jewish-British subjects in Germany?

Mr. Butler: No reply has yet been received to this note.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Have the Government yet received any report as to the extent of the damage done to the property of British Jews in Germany during the recent riots?

Mr. Butler: I should want notice of that question.

PRESS ATTACKS ON MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether a reply has now been received from the German Government to the protest made on behalf of His Majesty's Government in respect of the attack on the Leader of the Opposition and other Members of this House?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. No reply has yet been received.

Mr. T. Henderson: Do His Majesty's Government expect that the German Government will in due course send a reply to this protest?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

Mr. Thorne: Would the Prime Minister like to hear what I think about some members of the German Government?

ARGENTINE RAILWAYS.

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the failure of the London boards of the Anglo-Argentine railway companies to earn more than 2¼ per cent. on £277,000,000 of railway capital, of which £144,000,000 has not been allowed to earn a dividend for some years past, he will propose to the Argentine Government that they should buy the Anglo-Argentine railways at a price of their cost to British investors in return for Argentine Government sterling bonds or, alternatively, that the Argentine Government should relax the restrictions imposed upon the companies so as to allow them to earn a dividend of not less than 5 per cent. on the £144,000,000 of capital?

Mr. Butler: According to a recent statement from an authoritative Argentine source, the British companies concerned have submitted to the Argentine Government various suggestions for reform tending to remedy the situation, and the


authorities are examining these with all good will to find an equitable solution within reasonable limits. His Majesty's Government, who are naturally interested in the welfare of the railway companies concerned, welcome this statement. The Argentine Government are already aware of the hope of His Majesty's Government that a settlement satisfactory to both parties will be reached as soon as possible, and my hon. Friend may rest assured that His Majesty's Government will continue to watch the situation in full consciousness of the importance of the British interests involved.

Mr. Shinwell: Can we have an assurance that we shall not have a quarrel with the Argentine Government, such as we had in the case of Mexico?

Mr. Butler: I do not think the cases are similar.

REFUGEES (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Prime Minister what progress has been made by the International Commission set up after the Evian Conference to deal with the problem of refugees?

Mr. Butler: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to await the statements which will be made at the end of Question Time and during the course of this evening's Debate.

Later—

The Prime Minister: In conformity with the recommendations of the Evian meeting in July last, His Majesty's Government have had under constant examination the contribution which they could make, in respect of the United Kingdom and of the Colonial Empire, to the international effort to facilitate the admission and settlement of involuntary emigrants from Germany. They have also had in mind the view expressed by the Evian countries that the country of origin should make its contribution to this problem of migration by enabling intending emigrants to take with them their property and possessions. The extent to which countries can be expected to receive emigrants must depend very largely upon the conditions in which they are able to leave their country of origin. His Majesty's Government have been greatly impressed by the urgency of the problem created by

the anxiety to migrate overseas of sections of the population in Germany and of individuals who, in consequence of recent events in that country, have found temporary asylum in countries of first refuge.
In the light of these circumstances and of the recommendations of the Evian meeting, His Majesty's Government have again reviewed the situation.
With regard to the United Kingdom, the number of refugees which Great Britain can agree to admit, either for a temporary stay or for permanent settlement, is limited by the capacity of the voluntary organisations dealing with the refugee problem to undertake the responsibility for selecting, receiving and maintaining a further number of refugees. His Majesty's Government are keeping in close touch with the Committee which has been set up to co-ordinate the activities of the voluntary organisations engaged upon this task. The United Kingdom has, since 1933, permitted about 11,000 men, women and children to land in this country, in addition to some 4,000 or 5,000 others who have since emigrated overseas.
As regards the Colonial Empire, it must be remembered that, although covering a great extent of territory, it is not necessarily capable of the immediate absorption of large numbers of refugees. Many of our Colonies and Protectorates and our Mandated Territories in East and West Africa contain native populations of many millions, for whom we are the trustees, and whose interests must not be prejudiced. Many large areas, which at present are sparsely populated, are unsuitable either climatically or economically for European settlement. The Colonial Governments could only co-operate in any schemes of large or small-scale settlement provided the schemes were formulated and carried out by responsible organisations.
As was indicated in this House by Lord Harlech on 30th March, and as was subsequently made clear by the United Kingdom representative of the Evian meeting, His Majesty's Government consider that there is no territory in the Colonial Empire where suitable land is available for the immediate settlement of refugees in large numbers, although in certain territories small-scale settlement might be practicable. The Governors of Tanganyika and British Guiana have, however,


been asked to state whether, without detriment to native interests, land could be made available for leasing on generous terms for the purpose of large-scale settlement to the voluntary organisations concerned with refugees, provided they undertake full responsibility for the cost of preparing the land and of settling refugees of suitable types as the land is made available.
The Governor of Tanganyika has replied expressing his readiness to co-operate in any schemes of settlement of the refugees so far as existing obligations will permit. While he has not yet had an opportunity of consulting the Legislative Council, the Governor has expressed the view that the only suitable areas for large-scale settlement are likely to be found in the Southern Highlands and in a part of the Western Province, but a thorough investigation will be required before a definite indication of the available areas can be given. He would welcome a mission from the refugee organisations, and would readily give them all facilities for inspecting the areas and forming an opinion of the possibilities. The area that might be available comprises about 50,000 acres of land.
In addition, a scheme of small-scale settlement up to a total of 200 settlers is being considered.
A small experimental private scheme in Kenya, devised by one of the Jewish organisations in London, has been approved by the Governor after consultation with the Legislative Council, and young men who have undergone a course of training at one of the agricultural training centres established by Jewish organisations in Germany have already been selected for this scheme. These men will be settled on farms purchased by the Jewish organisations, after a further period of training in the Colony, and, if the scheme proves successful, they will be joined by other members of their families.
Inquiries have been made of the Governors of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland as to the possibility of small-scale settlement in those territories also, and I am glad to say that the replies received from both Governors indicate that this may be possible.
I turn now to British Guiana. In the interior of this Colony there are extensive

tracts of sparsely occupied land, consisting mainly of forest and savannah. These areas include certain Indian reservations, but the Governor states that ample space is available to provide fully for all possible needs of the Indian tribes and still leave large areas worthy of examination as to their suitability for refugee settlement. Agricultural development of these areas has hitherto been prevented by unfavourable conditions and lack of communications. It would, therefore, be essential that careful surveys by experts should be made before any definite scheme can be formulated, and His Majesty's Government propose to invite the voluntary organisations to send out their own representatives as early as possible to conduct such surveys on the spot. They will be given all facilities for this purpose by the Colonial Government, and His Majesty's Government would also be ready to send out some experienced official to advise and co-operate with them. Provided that the results of the surveys are satisfactory, His Majesty's Government contemplate the lease of large areas of land on generous terms under conditions to be settled hereafter. It is not possible at this stage to give exact figures of the total area which could be made available to be leased for this purpose, but it would certainly not be less than 10,000 square miles, and possibly more.
Finally, I must mention Palestine. It is generally recognised that that small country could not in any case provide a solution of the Jewish refugee problem; but Palestine has been making its contribution. No less than 40 per cent. of the Jewish immigrants entering the country during the last 12 months have come from Germany.
His Majesty's Government hope that the other countries represented on the Intergovernmental Committee to continue and develop the work of the Evian meeting, will also endeavour to make what contribution they can to the urgent need of facilitating emigration from Germany and from the countries of first refuge.
In conclusion, I must emphasise that, however great may be our desire and that of other countries to assist in dealing with this grave situation, the possibilities of settlement are strictly limited.

Mr. Cocks: The right hon. Gentleman has said nothing about the Dominions.

The Prime Minister: No, I spoke only of conditions which we can control ourselves.

Mr. Lipson: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, may I ask whether the Government will be willing to consider favourably the admission into this country of young children from Germany, who will not be competing in the labour market?

The Prime Minister: We shall be having a Debate on this subject later in the day, and perhaps the matter could be discussed then.

Mr. Sandys: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to say what plans there are to cover the intermediate period while the final plans are being made?

The Prime Minister: That, also, might be discussed to-night.

Sir Percy Hurd: Are any approaches being made to the German Government by the Powers unitedly in order to induce them to facilitate the exodus of these people?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows that approaches have been made.

Miss Rathbone: Would the Government not consider the possibility of granting a revolving loan for the maintenance of these refugees, in view of the fact that private organisations might not have the money?

The Prime Minister: That would be a little premature at this stage.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the area of 10,000 square miles in British Guiana the same as that considered by the League of Nations for Assyrian settlement three years ago, and condemned?

The Prime Minister: It includes that area, but it also includes other areas besides.

Mr. Burke: With regard to young children, if there are persons in this country who will undertake the responsibility for them and for their education, will the Home Office grant facilities for their speedy admission?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend will deal with that this afternoon.

Mr. Levy: May I thank the Government for their interest in this matter?

CZECHOSLOVAKIA.

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Prime Minister what are the nature and quantity, and what is the value of the rolling stock alleged by the German Government to have been removed from the Sudeten-German area; and what is the present position regarding the German Government's claim against Czechoslovakia in this matter?

Mr. Butler: Full details on this matter are not available. The function of the International Commission was to lay down the principles according to which the term "existing installations" in Article 2 of the Munich Agreement should be interpreted. The Commission was not concerned with the application of these principles, which was entrusted to a special German-Czech Commission.

Mr. Gibson: Are road motor vehicles included in the definition or interpretation of that term?

Mr. Butler: I should like to have notice of a question on that particular point, but it does include such movable material as are necessary to the normal function of the installation.

Brigadier-General Spears: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is aware that the German Government is now demanding further areas of Czechoslovak territory, notably in the neighbourhood of Bratislava, which were not included in the Godesberg demands; and whether these demands have been approved by the International Commission and agreed to by the Czechoslovak Government;
(2) whether, in view of the fact that the German Government is demanding further areas of Czechoslovak territory, he will instruct the British representative on the International Commission to demand as compensation the return to Czechoslovakia of equivalent areas where the new frontier on the German side includes compact districts and important towns with large Czech majorities?

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement concerning the recent decision of the International Commission in Berlin whereby a further 100 villages with a population of 50,000 Czechs have been transferred to the German Reich?

Mr. Butler: The International Commission agreed at its last meeting that proposals for the final delimitation of the frontiers should be submitted to it by the Czech and German Governments, and negotiations have taken place between the two Governments. My Noble Friend's attention has been drawn to Press reports that various territorial readjustments are being considered in connection with these negotiations, but he has received no precise official information as to their nature. The result of these negotiations is shortly to be brought before the International Commission for their consideration, and until further information is received, I am not prepared to make any statement.

Brigadier-General Spears: In view of the fact that Herr Hitler told the Prime Minister that he did not want to rule over any but Germans, may he not now be reminded of that statement when it is proposed that some 60,000 Czechs should be annexed?

Mr. Butler: Pending the receipt of precise information about this proposal, I am afraid I could not answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question.

RUMANIA (CONVERSATIONS).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the recent conversations between King Carol and Members of His Majesty's Government?

The Prime Minister: The conversations between King Carol and the Rumanian Minister for Foreign Affairs on the one hand, and Members of His Majesty's Government on the other, were naturally confidential, and I can make no detailed statement. I can, however, assure the House that the discussions were of a most frank and friendly character and covered matters of common concern to the two Governments both in the political and economic fields.

SPAIN.

Mr. Boothby: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give the House an assurance that belligerent rights will not be granted to General Franco until all foreign troops have been withdrawn from Spain?

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government still adhere to the provisions of the plan for the evacuation of foreign troops from Spain unanimously agreed to by the Non-Intervention Committee on 5th July, 1938, and in particular to the conditions there laid down for the grant of belligerent rights to the contending parties?

Mr. Butler: The conditions under which belligerent rights will be granted to both parties in Spain remain as defined in the proposed resolution adopted by the Non-Intervention Committee on 5th July last. As long as these proposals continue to represent the unanimous programme of the Commiteee, His Majesty's Government, as a member of that Committee, adhere to them.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Are we to understand from the answer of the Minister that His Majesty's Government have no intention of proposing any modification of the terms?

Mr. Butler: I have said that these proposals do now represent the unanimous programme of the Committee. I am not able to go further than that.

Sir Percy Harris: If this ceases to be the unanimous programme of the Committee, do the Government intend to change their policy?

Mr. Butler: The Government will consider the position as it then arises.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: But are the Government trying to get any modification? That is what we want to know. Are they trying to influence the Committee to alter this unanimous view which is held at the present time?

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman must wait for a meeting of the Committee.

Mr. Boothby: Are the Government making the unanimity of the Committee a condition of adhering to the terms?

Mr. Butler: I cannot go any further than the answer which I have already given twice. As long as these proposals represent the unanimous programme of the Committee, we will adhere to it.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Does the resolution referred to in the answer, take


account of the removal of foreign munitions of war from Spain as well as the removal of foreign troops?

Mr. Butler: That is a much wider question than the question on the Paper.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister the total number of reports received from His Majesty's representatives in Spain since the beginning of September, 1938?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's representatives in all foreign countries continually report to my Noble Friend on all matters likely to be of interest to His Majesty's Government, but I cannot give the statistics required.

Mr. Davidson: Have the recent reports of His Majesty's representatives indicated a general settlement of the Spanish dispute, which was the basis of the recent Italo-British Agreement?

Mr. Butler: I cannot really reveal in a general way the many reports that we get from our representatives.

Mr. Davidson: Have those reports indicated a general settlement of the Spanish dispute?

Mr. Butler: I have given the hon. Gentleman my answer to that question.

Miss Rathbone: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the number and location of His Majesty's Government's representatives in Spain is adequate, seeing that they have only Consular representatives in a few places and no Naval representatives at the Embassy in Valencia or in Barcelona? May I have an answer to that question?

Mr. Speaker: There are 85 questions on the Paper.

Mr. A. Jenkins: asked the Prime Minister what instructions were given to Mr. Hemming on the occasion of his recent visit to General Franco; and what was the nature of his report?

Mr. Butler: As I explained on 5th October in reply to the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts), the object of Mr. Hemming's mission was to explain any points of detail and clear up any misconceptions which may have arisen in connection with the Committee's plan and to investigate the exact intentions of the authorities regarding its

execution. Mr. Hemming's report was only received in the Foreign Office late on Saturday and is now being studied.

Miss Rathbone: Seeing that the plan was first issued on 5th July, is not the delay somewhat long?

Mr. Jenkins: When will the hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a statement with regard to that report?

Mr. Butler: I fully appreciate the anxiety of the hon. Member, and indeed of the House, to have further news on this point. At the moment I cannot say more, but if the hon. Member will put a further question down, I will do my best to answer it.

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will invite the French Government to join with them in proposing to Signor Mussolini collective representations by the three Governments to General Franco to induce him to put into force the plan for the evacuation of foreign troops from Spain unanimously agreed to by the Non-Intervention Committee on 5th July, 1938?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend is at present considering Mr. Hemming's report and is not yet in a position to come to any decision on future policy.

Captain Plugge: asked the Prime Minister whether any specific request has been received from General Franco for the grant of belligerent rights; and, if so, in what form it was conveyed to the British Government?

Mr. Butler: As long ago as 8th June, 1937, a communication was received by His Majesty's Embassy at Hendaye from General Franco's Administration, stating the grounds on which General Franco claimed to be accorded belligerent rights.

LIBYA (BRITISH SUBJECTS).

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister the approximate number of British subjects at present resident in Italian Libya; and what are the consolidated arrangements that exist for the protection of British subjects and interests in that country?

Mr. Butler: There are some 3,000 British subjects in Libya, most of whom


are Maltese. The protection of their interests is ensured by His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome and by His Majesty's Consuls at Tripoli and Benghazi acting under his supervision.

Mr. Day: Are the Government considering any further arrangements?

Mr. Butler: I consider the present arrangements sufficient for the purpose.

CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the attempt being made by the Japanese to create a Japanese monopoly of the trade in raw cotton in the area round Shanghai; and what action he has taken in the matter?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend has seen reports in the Press to this effect. He is calling for a report, and my hon. Friend may rest assured that this matter will be closely followed.

Mr. Hannah: Is not the condition of our trade in China very serious?

Mr. Butler: We are fully alive to the seriousness of the position.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to report the result of the discussions with the Japanese authorities in Shanghai and Tokyo as to the re-opening of foreign-owned factories in the occupied areas inside and outside the International Settlement in Shanghai?

Mr. Butler: The discussions are continuing. My Noble Friend understands that certain of the cases are in a fair way to being settled locally.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet received a satisfactory reply from the Japanese Government to the representations of His Majesty's Government that an opportunity should be afforded to the representatives of the British bondholders of the Shanghai-Nanking Railway to inspect the railway line, and that the necessary measures should be taken to safeguard their financial interests in the line?

Mr. Butler: In his conversations with the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs last September, His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo was informed that there

were difficulties of a military character in the way of a comprehensive grant of inspection facilities on this and other Chinese railways: an inspection of the Shanghai North Railway Station had, however, been permitted. Both the question of inspection and that of the financial interests of the bondholders are being considered by the Japanese Government, and a definite reply has been promised.

Mr. Chorlton: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the representations from British trading interests in Shanghai urging strong and immediate action to protect British trade in China from Japanese encroachment; and what steps he has taken in the matter?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend has given close attention to these representations. His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo has recently re-emphasised to the Japanese Government the importance which is attached in this country to the early settlement of all outstanding cases affecting British interests in China.

Mr. Chorlton: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the Japanese official account of the inaugural meetings of the two Japanese syndicates which have been formed to control industries, commodities, and communications in North and Central China; by whom the capital of these syndicates is being subscribed; whether in cash or kind; and what steps he has taken to prevent British trade being excluded from the China market?

Mr. Butler: I understand that the two companies in question were formally established on 7th November. En each case, one half of the capital is to be furnished by the Japanese Government and one half by private investors, part of the Government's investment being represented by contributions in kind. His Majesty's Ambassador has been assured that no exclusive rights or monopolistic privileges are claimed for these enterprises. With regard to the last part of the question, representations have frequently been made, and will continue to be made, to the Japanese Government whenever British interests are adversely affected.

PRIME MINISTER (VISIT TO PARIS).

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether he intends during his


forthcoming visit to Paris to discuss proposals for the amendment of the Covenant of the League of Nations with the French Government; and what is the nature of such proposals?

The Prime Minister: The attitude of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom on the question of the application of the principles of the Covenant was made clear at the last Assembly of the League of Nations, and their proposals were then made to the Assembly. His Majesty's Government have no further proposals to make at the present time.

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that during his forthcoming visit to Paris he will not discuss proposals for the grant of belligerent rights to General Franco?

The Prime Minister: I am not able to say in advance what subjects will be discussed during the forthcoming visit to Paris.

Mr. Jenkins: Have no steps been taken to determine what questions will be discussed at the meeting in Paris?

The Prime Minister: That is a different question altogether; I said that I could not tell the House.

Mr. Attlee: Will not the right hon. Gentleman give the House some idea of the purpose of this visit and what the discussions are to be, in view of the importance of the need that the House should know what discussions are being carried on by our representatives?

The Prime Minister: I do not think it would be in the public interest.

Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman desires merely to be discreet or that he has nothing to say?

Mr. Attlee: I was not asking for details; I was asking for the general trend or scope of the conversations proposed to be held in Paris.

The Prime Minister: The visit to Paris is a return visit, following upon the visit of the French Ministers to this country, and no doubt the opportunity will be taken while we are in Paris of discussing various matters of general interest to both countries.

Mr. Davidson: Has the Prime Minister consulted, or will he consult, his Cabinet with regard to the proposals to be discussed?

ANGLO-ITALIAN AGREEMENT.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister whether in accordance with Annex II of the British-Italian Agreement which agrees to the exchange of military information, His Majesty's Government will call for information regarding the Italian aviation stations in the Balearic Islands?

Mr. Butler: The Agreement provides that the exchange of information about air forces is confined to such forces stationed in or based on certain overseas possessions of either party and certain territories in Africa. I would refer the hon. Member to Annex II of the Agreement for full details.

Mr. Davidson: I have read Annex II, but may I have a specific reply to the question whether His Majesty's Government, when this opportunity occurs, will make definite representations with regard to these aviation stations in the Balearic Islands?

Mr. Butler: This matter is not covered by the Agreement.

Mr. Davidson: Does that mean that His Majesty's Government view those aviation stations with complacency?

Mr. Butler: I cannot accept the premises of the hon. Gentleman's statement, and the answer as regards the agreement is, as I have said, "No."

Sir A. Sinclair: Does that mean that His Majesty's Government will have no right to ask about the aviation stations of the Italian Army in the Balearic Islands, or about the Italian troops in Spain, or about the guns that have been erected on the Straits of Gibraltar?

Mr. Butler: The question on the Paper asked whether this matter was covered by the Agreement, and I have said that it is not.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Does not the Anglo-Italian Agreement provide for the maintenance of the status quo in the Mediterranean, and can it be said that the establishment of Italian aviation bases in the Balearic Islands does not affect that status quo?

Mr. Butler: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must remember the statement made by the head of the Italian Government on the subject of the status quo.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

CHINA AND SPAIN.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister whether, as China and Spain are still members of the League of Nations, both countries were represented at the last meeting of the League?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Davidson: Were both those countries assured at the last League meeting that His Majesty's Government still stood by the Covenant of the League of Nations?

Mr. Butler: I had at Geneva the opportunity of meeting representatives of both those countries. When the accounts of the League proceedings come out, I hope the hon. Gentleman will study them carefully.

ABYSSINIA.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Prime Minister whether Ethiopia is to continue to be recognised by His Majesty's Government as a member of the League of Nations?

Mr. Butler: The question whether Ethiopia is or is not a member of the League of Nations is one which can only be settled by the League itself.

Mr. MacMillan: How is it possible for the British Government to treat Ethiopia as though she were not a member of the League of Nations and still say it is bound to abide by or await the decision of the League as a whole as to whether Ethiopia is to continue or cease to be a member of the League?

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the proceedings of the League last May, he will see that it was generally agreed that the League should leave each member free to take what steps it thought fit about the recognition of Italian sovereignty in Ethiopia.

Mr. MacMillan: In that case, cannot the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the States are free to give their opinions as to whether the Ethiopians should still be recognised as being in the League; and what prevents him informing the House as to what is the opinion of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Butler: We must wait for the matter to be raised at the League.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that there was no agreement in the Council of the League last May upsetting the unanimous resolution arrived at in 1932?

Sir A. Sinclair: Have the Government waited for this subject to be raised? Have they not in fact recognised Italian sovereignty over Abyssinia before the Assembly of the League has given them leave?

Mr. Butler: That again is broader than the question on the Paper. I said that after the meeting of the League in May each State felt itself entitled to take independent action if it wanted to do so. We took action, of which the House is well aware.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that there was no decision whatever taken in May which entitled anybody to take independent action?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir, that is quite wrong.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS (EX-SERVICE MEN).

Colonel Heneage: asked the Minister of Pensions what steps have been taken to direct the attention of war pensioners, and other ex-service men, to the importance to themselves and their dependants of their taking advantage of the Contributory Pensions (Voluntary Contributors) Act, 1937, before 2nd January next, when the special provision in favour of men between 40 and 55 years of age ceases to operate?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I am glad to inform my hon. and gallant Friend that every effort has already been made in the direction indicated. In August, 1937, I invited the chairman of every War pensions committee to make widely known among the ex-service community the benefits of the Act. A month later I caused several thousand posters to be printed and issued to all my local offices and to the branches of the British Legion urging all eligible ex-service men to take advantage of the Act. In July last I broadcast an appeal with the like object to all Great War pensioners. In August, in response to my invitation, the chairmen of all War pensions committee gave wide publicity to the benefits of the Act through the medium of the local Press. At the same time I communicated with all Great War


disability pensioners individually again calling attention to the benefits of the Act and inquiring whether they had or wished to become voluntary contributors. I am following up their replies by personal visits to pensioners in suitable cases through the voluntary workers attached to the War pensions committees. Both the British Legion and the Emergency Help Committee of the British Red Cross Society have generously undertaken to co-operate.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: Will my hon. Friend do what he can to make it known that although men are now 55, they are eligible if they were not 55 at the beginning of the year, as there is a great deal of misunderstanding on the point?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I will see what I can do in that direction.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Does not my hon. Friend think that Members of this House might follow out his suggestion by circularising in their own constituencies?

Table showing the number and value of motors cars (including chassis) imported during the year 1936 into Argentina and Brazil form the united kingdom and the united states respectively:


—
Imports into


Argentina.
Brazil.


From United Kingdom.
From United States
From United Kingdom.
From United States.


Number.
Value.*
Number.
Value.*
Number.
Value.
Number.
Value.




Thousand pesos (paper)

Thousand pesos (paper)

Thousand milreis

Thousand milreis


Automobiles for passenger transport.
432
507
15,523
14,665
155
2,959
17,402
176,853


Other (including chassis of all kinds).
363
597
7,806
5,136


* "Tariff" values.

Rates of exchange:

(a) Arangentina (Government selling rate) 16.96 paper pesos=£1.
(b) Brazil (free rate) 85.93 milreis=£1.

WORLD'S FAIR, NEW YORK.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether if he will arrange for consultations to take place as soon as possible between representatives of all interests engaged in

Mr. Ramsbotham: I think that generally they have done so.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

ARGENTINA AND BRAZIL (MOTOR CAR IMPORTS).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the number and value of motor cars of British or United States manufacture imported into Argentina and Brazil during the 12 months ended at the last available date?

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Day: Have the enormous differences that have existed been brought to the notice of British motor car manufacturers?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, I have done it myself?

Following is the answer:

the pottery industry in preparation for the New York world fair?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Representative associations in the trade have already been consulted.

Mr. Smith: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether


he can make a statement on the Government's policy in preparation for the New York world fair; will he consider the need for special cheap facilities to be arranged in order that the maximum number of British people can visit the fair; and will he arrange for films to be made of the development in Britain during the past 10 years and include municipal enterprise, model estates and factories, Wythenshawe and other places of interest, in preparation for the British section of the New York world fair?

Mr. Hudson: I am endeavouring to arrange for the most satisfactory representation possible, in all the circumstances, of this country's achievements and activities. I understand that the British shipping companies will make available at a reduced rate monthly excursion tickets during certain periods of the Fair. The suggestion in the last part of the question has been noted.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: May I ask why a number of documentary films of Scotland recently completed, which are highly regarded by the trade, are not to be shown at this important exhibition?

Mr. Hudson: I was not aware of that fact. The answer is that they were not considered suitable. I will have the question looked into.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Pensions how many claims for pensions have been made by ex-service men during the past 12 months; how many have been granted; and how many refused?

Mr. Ramsbotham: During the 12 months ended 30th September, 1938, 2,778 applications were received (nearly half of which were from existing or former pensioners) for fresh disabilities claimed to be due to War service. The number established and accepted for pension or treatment during the same period was 497, and the number refused was 2,267.

Mr. Lipson: In view of the very large number of cases which have been refused, will my hon. Friend consider revising the regulations so as to enable more ex-service men to be entitled to pensions

and to remove the grievance which so many of them feel that they have not had a square deal?

Mr. Ramsbotham: In view of the fact that it is 20 years since the War, the percentage of successful applications is remarkable—18 per cent. now compared with 17 per cent. last year, and only 10 per cent. eight years ago.

Mr. Lipson: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the fact that it is now 20 years since the War is a good reason why these regulations should be revised?

Mr. T. Smith: Can the Minister say how many of the 2,000 cases that were turned down were examined by a doctor responsible to the Minister?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

HOME-GROWN PRODUCE.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Minister of Agriculture the total value of food-stuffs grown at home per head of the population in 1908 and in 1937 in terms of 1908 money values?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The values per head of the population of the agricultural output of Great Britain in 1908 and 1936–37, in terms of 1908 prices, are estimated at approximately £3.7 and £4.2 respectively.

Mr. T. Williams: Is the low figure before or after the subsidies have been added to the prices?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot say without notice.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the imports of dairy produce, and pig and poultry products, during 1937, were valued at £117,000,000, he can state in what proportion it is anticipated that these imports will be supplied from home sources when the recent Bacon Industry Act and the new milk and poultry legislation are effectively in operation?

Mr. Morrison: I regret that I am unable to make a forecast of the nature desired by my hon. Friend. The future home production and imports of milk, pig and poultry products may be influenced by many factors which it is impossible to estimate with any pretensions to accuracy.

Major Braithwaite: Do the Government expect an increase of home production from these measures?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

EGGS (MARKING).

Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that steps are taken to mark eggs imported into this country from Holland in such a way as to indicate whether they are cold-store eggs or fresh eggs, action can be taken in this country to ensure that retailers shall pass on this information to their customers in order to protect the interests of the British poultry industry?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The whole question of the marking of cold-stored eggs, both imported and home-produced, is at present under consideration in connection with the forthcoming legislation to give effect to the Government's policy for the poultry industry.

CATTLE AND SHEEP (IMPORTS FROM EIRE).

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of cattle and sheep admitted into this country from the Irish Free State since the coming into force of the Anglo-Eire Agreement, and the number for, approximately, a similar period before the agreement came into force?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: As the reply includes a table of figures I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend indicate whether there is an increase or a decrease?

Mr. Morrison: There is an increase, but the conditions immediately before the treaty was signed were rather exceptional, as beasts were held up on the other side in anticipation of the treaty being signed.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in addition to the other causes which have caused a slump in the prices of sheep and lambs, these imports from the Irish Free State have particularly hit the North Wales farmers?

Mr. Morrison: The increase is negligible as regards that.

Following is the reply:

The following table shows the imports from Eire, so far as figures are available, of all classes of cattle and of sheep since the 19th May, 1938, when the trade agreement with that country came into operation, as compared with imports in the corresponding periods of 1937.

1937.
1938.


Cattle.
Numbers.
Numbers.


19th May-12th November
335,801
412,617


Sheep and Lambs.




June-October
203,227
212,070

I should add that prior to 19th May there was a noticeable decline in imports of cattle, both because traders concerned were awaiting the outcome of the negotiations and because the prevailing drought in Great Britain delayed the normal stocking of pastures with Irish stores. After that date there was a compensatory increase in the numbers arriving in this country.

CREDITS.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government have arrived at any decision on the question of improved credit facilities for farmers?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have nothing to add to the reply given on 1st November to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère).

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for three years I have been endeavouring to get something done in this direction?

Mr. Morrison: The problem is a difficult one, as I have previously told the House, and it has been under consideration, but recent events have made the matter one to be dealt with more quickly.

Mr. T. Williams: Has the right hon. Gentleman any knowledge of the real indebtedness of the farmers of this country or the desire on the part of farmers to take large credits?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, I have a certain amount of information on both heads.

MILLING COMBINES.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether he will find time for a


discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Evesham relating to milling combines?

["That this House deplores the effect on wheat offals for stock-feeding of the Government's wheat policy under which the millers have to find approximately £1 per quarter on a crop of 8,000,000 quarters with the consequence that the price charged for offals is at least as much as the farmer receives for his wheat; considers that the raising of the price of flour would not be an acceptable solution of the problem; is of the opinion that the profits of the milling combines, who have been enabled to reap undue benefits from past legislation, should be limited; and, as the present prices of flour and offals are inequitable to consumers of bread and stock-feeding farmers, calls upon the Government to institute immediate inquiries with a view to fixing a maximum price for home-produced wheat offals and a reduction in the price of flour."]

The Prime Minister: I regret that I cannot hold out any hope of special time being given for the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great importance of this matter and of the fact that farmers are paying for their wheat offal supplies 50 per cent. more than they are getting for their wheat; and can he assist me to get from the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Agriculture any real information, as one Department refers back to another?

The Prime Minister: I would remind my hon. Friend that facilities already exist for discussion of this question on a private Member's Motion.

MUTTON AND LAMB (IMPORTS).

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the allocation for the 1937 imports of mutton and lamb from Australia and New Zealand; what was the actual quantity of these imports in 1937; and what is the anticipated quantity of such imports during 1938?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The total allocation to Australia and New Zealand for imports of frozen mutton and lamb in 1937 was 5,910,000 cwts. and actual imports from those Dominions in that year

amounted to 5,486,000 cwts. It is anticipated that imports during the current year will not exceed 5,500,000 cwts.

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the prevailing low price for fat sheep and lambs and the increased numbers offered for sale during the past six weeks, he will represent to the Governments of Australia and New Zealand the urgent necessity that they should drastically reduce, during the next three months, their shipment of mutton and lamb to this country?

Mr. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friend to my statement during the Debate on the Address on 15th November, to which I have at present nothing to add.

Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the farmers of this country are waiting with considerable anxiety for action to be taken to help their industry?

Mr. Morrison: I can only refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made as to the effect of imports upon prices.

WARBLE FLY.

Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many prosecutions have been instituted for non-compliance with the Warble Fly (Dressing of Cattle) Order; and whether he can make any statement with regard to the progress made in eliminating this pest?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Notification has been received from local authorities of 94 prosecutions instituted in Great Britain for non-compliance with the Warble Fly (Dressing of Cattle) Order during the 1938 dressing season. Reports of the Ministry's veterinary officers indicate that, whilst there is a considerable variation in the incidence of warble infestation in different parts of the country, generally speaking the position has shown gradual improvement since the Order was first imposed in 1936.

LAND DRAINAGE (OGMORE RIVER).

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture the progress made in the cleansing of the Ogmore River, Glamorgan; the length undertaken for cleansing; and the length completed to date?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The length of the River Ogmore covered by the improvement works included in the scheme now being carried out with the aid of a grant under Section 55 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, is eight miles, and the length completed to date is one and a half miles.

RAILWAY RECEIPTS.

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been directed to the serious falling off in the revenue of the railway companies; and whether with a view to avoiding the consequences of continuous reduction of revenue, he will cause a Royal Commission to be appointed to ascertain the causes and to make recommendations for putting the railways upon a sound financial basis?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the falling-off in railway receipts. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is receiving a deputation from the railway companies on Wednesday when this subject is to be discussed. In the meantime, therefore, it would be premature to take any decision as to possible future action.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

DOMINIONS AND COLONIES.

Mr. Lee: asked the Prime Minister whether any pledge or guarantee, written or implied, has been given by the Dominions and Colonies, either severally or collectively, that, in case of an attack upon the United Kingdom by any country, they would come to the assistance of Great Britain?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether he can announce the composition of the committee of business men to be set up in connection with supplies for the Defence Services?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Prime Minister whether the right of appeal to the new Committee of Supplies will be limited to individual firms, or if development boards, or other bodies representing areas whose efforts to obtain

for their industries a share in rearmament work have so far met with little success, may also put their case before the Committee; and whether, in order to retain the confidence of the public in their work, the Committee will be required to make periodic reports to Parliament?

The Prime Minister: I am not yet in a position to add to the statement which I made in the course of the Debate of Thursday last.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Will the establishment of this Committee involve any charge upon public funds for the provision of offices and staff or other matters?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I do not think so.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the very great desire felt in various parts of the country that development boards should get an opportunity to put their case before the new Committee?

The Prime Minister: I will bear that in mind.

FLOODING, PENCOED, GLAMORGAN.

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of periodic flooding in the Pencoed area of Glamorgan and the damage done to farmers and other inhabitants; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent its recurrence.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am not aware that there has been flooding in the immediate neighbourhood of Pencoed. In any case the responsible authority for taking preventive measures is the Mid-Glamorgan Rivers Catchment Board, who are in fact engaged in carrying out, with the aid of a grant under Section 55 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, a scheme of improvement works on the River Ewenny.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY.

BRITISH FISHERMEN.

Mr. Loftus: asked the Minister of Agriculture the decrease since 1913 in the total number of British fishermen, regular and occasional, employed in the fishery industry?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: As the reply contains a number of figures I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The estimated number of British fishermen regularly or occasionally employed in sea fishing in Great Britain fell from 79,205 in 1913 to 49,951 in 1937—a decrease of 29,254. The regularly employed numbered 46,029 in 1937 as compared with 70,548 in 1913 and the occasionally employed numbered 3,922 in 1937 as compared with 8,657 in 1913. Figures relating to the number of fishermen engaged in the inland fisheries of Great Britain are not available.

MOTOR BOATS.

Mr. Loftus: asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of applications received from English ports, and from which ports, for grants towards the costs of building new motor-boats under Section 4 of the Herring Industry Act, 1938?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: One tentative inquiry has been received by the Herring Industry Board from the port of Penzance, but no formal applications have been made. I should explain, however, that the terms and conditions subject to which grants will be made have not yet been announced.

HERRING INDUSTRY BOARD.

Mr. Loftus: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has considered the protest from the English Herring Catchers' Association regarding the composition and powers of the new Herring Industry Board; and if he proposes to take any action thereon?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The membership of the new Board and the terms of their appointment having now been settled by my colleagues and myself after careful consideration of all aspects of the question, I do not think that anything would be gained by my discussing the matter with representatives of the English Herring Catchers' Association. I have every confidence in the new Board but the success of its work will necessarily depend to a considerable extent on its receiving the full co-operation of all sections of the industry.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Does the Minister expect to get the full co-operation of the industry if those on the West Coast do not have better representation on the new board than they had on the old board?

Mr. Morrison: In the case of all these boards there is always criticism from sections of industry that their section has not been properly represented. On a small board like this it is impossible for each locality to have representation. The board is, in my judgment, well qualified to carry out its duties, and I would appeal to hon. Members who have influence with their constituents in this matter to give it a chance.

Mr. MacMillan: My question did not imply any criticism of the new board, and I agree with what the Minister said about giving them a chance, but will he give special consideration to opportunities for advice being available from the West Coast as a whole? It is not a sectional appeal merely from any section of the industry.

Mr. Morrison: I would remind the hon. Member that an advisory council is being set up, and I will bear in mind what he says as to the necessity of better representation of West Coast interests.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS WORK (EMPLOYÉS).

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Postmaster-General whether the Post Office employés are permitted to offer their spare-time services for voluntary air-raid precautions work to the local authority in whose area they reside?

The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): Post office employés in general are permitted to offer their spare-time services for voluntary air-raid precautions work to the local authority in whose area they reside. The telegraph, telephone and engineering staffs will be fully occupied in an emergency on the maintenance of essential national services and cannot, therefore, be allowed to undertake obligations in other directions, which would involve their absence from the Post Office during such a period, but they are not precluded from rendering assistance in connection with the preparation of local


authorities' schemes in the preliminary stages, so long as their availability for official duty is not prejudiced.

Mr. Morrison: Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take steps to make it known to Post Office employés that they would be encouraged to take part in air-raid precautions work for the local authorities in their spare time?

Major Tryon: I know that the staff is already doing a very great deal, and I am in agreement with the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Morrison: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in my own borough a Post Office employé was asked to resign from doing voluntary work of this nature?

Major Tryon: I have no information about that, but there are some members of our staff who cannot possibly be trained usefully to do two different things in an emergency?

Mr. Morrison: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the impression is about among Post Office employés that they are not expected to take any part in this work, and could he not correct that impression?

Major Tryon: I do not think that is the impression, judging by the work they have been doing.

STAMP-SELLING MACHINES.

Mr. Day: asked the Postmaster-General what has been the result of experiments made with the combined stamp-selling and change-giving machines; and whether from experiments made it would be practicable to arrange for these machines to be supplied for public use?

Major Tryon: No experiments have been made with combined stamp-selling and change-giving machines.

Mr. Day: Has the Post Office noted the machines on tube stations for giving change?

Major Tryon: This matter has been gone into, but we could not find that there was any demand for such machines.

Mr. Day: Will the Minister consider introducing shilling and sixpenny machines for the convenience of people who have not got change?

TELEVISION BROADCAST (GUNFIRE).

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the alarm caused throughout North London at 10 p.m. on Armistice night by heavy gunfire from Alexandra Palace in connection with a television broadcast; and will he represent to the British Broadcasting Corporation that this display was out of place on such a day, and that, in the interests of children, old people, and invalids, adequate warning should be given when gunfire is included in the programme?

Major Tryon: I am informed by the British Broadcasting Corporation that, in connection with a play which was being televised from a studio on the evening of 11th November, 10 or 12 rounds of blank ammunition were fired outside Alexandra Palace by a unit of the Territorial Army. Having learned that the incident caused some disquiet in the neighbourhood, the Corporation has already expressed its regret. Firework effects were substituted when the play was repeated.

LATE LORDS JELLICOE AND BEATTY (MEMORIALS).

Sir John Mellor: asked the First Commissioner of Works (1) whether any designs for the proposed memorials in Trafalgar Square to the late Lord Jellicoe and the late Lord Beatty have been approved by the Royal Fine Art Commission; and whether he will give an assurance that no design will be executed which has not been so approved;
(2) whether the designs for the Trafalgar Square memorials to the late Lord Jellicoe and the late Lord Beatty, which were exhibited in the Tea Room at the end of July, have at any time been submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission; and with what result?

The First Commissioner of Works (Sir Philip Sassoon): On 24th November, 1937, I informed the House that I was considering a scheme for memorial fountains in Trafalgar Square. Since that date several designs have been prepared and have been submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission, to whom I am indebted for many helpful suggestions. The Commission were not finally so sanguine as I as to the possibilities of the latest design


submitted to them, but after this design had been further developed and had been shown to Parliament, the Board of Admiralty and, through the medium of reproductions in the Press, to the general public, I considered that the decision to proceed should no longer be deferred and I definitely commissioned the sculptors and the architect to proceed with the work.

Sir J. Mellor: In view of the fact that the Royal Fine Art Commission have consistently rejected all designs similar to the present design, and in view of the fact that those designs were exhibited in the Tea Room only during the four days before the House rose at the end of July, will my right hon. Friend now arrange for the designs, or, preferably, models, to be exhibited in the Tea Room for the information of hon. Members?

Captain Arthur Evans: May I ask whether the relatives of these distinguished sailors were consulted before the decision was made?

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: Can we be given an assurance that these monuments will be erected in Trafalgar Square near to the monument of the greatest sailor of all time, and not in any other parts of the city?

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: In view of the fact that this House passed Resolutions in December, 1935, and May, 1936,authorising the setting-up of memorials to these distinguished sailors, does not my right hon. Friend think that the sooner the memorials are erected the better?

Mr. Cartland: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any criticisms of the scheme since it was first published in the Press?

Mr. H. Strauss: Does my right hon. Friend not think that the appearance of these portrait busts in the fountains would be ludicrous, and does he consider this the right way to treat the memory of our great men?

Sir P. Sassoon: As I have already said, I consulted the Royal Fine Art Commission at every stage of this scheme. Eventually, after a very long delay, the designs were shown in the Tea Room during four days in July. No criticism was received from any Member of this House. The designs were widely shown

throughout the country through the medium of the Press, and no criticisms were received. They received the unanimous approval of the whole of the Board of Admiralty. In these circumstances I felt entitled to give the commission to the sculptors, especially after such a very long delay.

Sir J. Mellor: Was it not stated in the Press at the end of July that these designs had been approved by the Royal Fine Art Commission?

Sir P. Sassoon: Not by me.

Mr. Lansbury: Is it not a fact that the report or decision on the Fine Art Commission has been rejected on occasions by Joint Committees of this House, and that there is nothing unusual in their advice not being accepted on this occasion; and is it not the fact, also, that the predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman have been considerably worried by members of the general public who were interested in these matters, advising them not to erect any more statues in this city, where there are already too many?

ROYAL ARSENAL, BRIDGEND (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware of the wet conditions for labour at the Royal Arsenal, Bridgend; and whether he will induce the contractors to provide oilskins, gumboots and shelters for their employés?

Sir P. Sassoon: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I understand that the contractors are already supplying oilskins and gumboots to men required to work in wet conditions, and that ample shelter accommodation has been provided.

Mr. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries, particularly to see whether those working in these conditions were without gumboots?

Sir P. Sassoon: My information is that all those working in those conditions were provided with gumboots.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (TELEPHONE BOXES).

Mr. Remer: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware


that in the new telephone boxes erected in the corridor of the House it is impossible to close the door when the Member is sitting on the seat provided; and whether he will take steps to see that these are altered?

Sir P. Sassoon: If the hon. Member will close the door of the telephone box before he seats himself, I think that he will find the arrangements satisfactory.

Mr. Remer: Has my right hon. Friend tried to close the door without anybody in the box? If so, he will find that you cannot close the door without hitting the seat. If he tries to close the door with himself in the box, although he is of considerably less stature than myself, I am sure that he will be convinced that it is most inconvenient for those who are of more ample build?

Sir P. Sassoon: I shall be very pleased to visit the telephone box with my hon. Friend. The difficulty arises from the fact that I tried to provide him with a more comfortable seat than usual.

Mr. Moreing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr.Remer) made a statement in the Press last Thursday that I was of even larger build than himself, and will my right hon. Friend express an opinion upon that somewhat vexed question?

CENOTAPH (FLOOD LIGHTING).

Mr. Thorne: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the flood-lighting of the Cenotaph, in view of the large number of people who desire to make pilgrimage to this national memorial, especially at this time of the year?

Sir P. Sassoon: At the time of its erection, four standard lamps were sited on the pavements in the neighbourhood of the Cenotaph in such a way that always and at all seasons it is abundantly lighted. I have grave doubts as to whether the actual flood-lighting of it would be an innovation which would be either desirable or would commend itself generally; and, owing to the position of the Cenotaph in the midst of busy traffic streams, this would, in any case, prevent considerable technical difficulties.

Mr. Kirby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the flood-lighting of the Cenotaph in Liverpool has been quite successful?

OFFICE OF WORKS (DISCHARGED EMPLOYÉS).

Mr. Parker: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the present extensive discharge of Office of Works staff and, in particular, of the recent dismissal of nine men from Somerset House and 27 men from the Law Courts depôt, he will contemplate putting men, who would otherwise be discharged from the Office of Works, on to work of national importance?

Sir P. Sassoon: Considerable fluctuations in the number of men employed are, unfortunately, necessary in the building trade, and I am afraid that it would not be possible to give special preference to individual men in obtaining employment on work of national importance by reason of the fact that they may have been employed for a short period on Government work. All of the men discharged, except eight, were of less than one year's service and none had as much as four years' service.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the delay and confusion which would be caused to air-raid precautions services in an emergency owing to many houses in surburban districts being named but not numbered, he will request the appropriate local authorities to take steps to secure that all houses shall be numbered?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): Powers to require the numbering of houses are available to urban local authorities under the general law. The publicity given to the point by my hon. Friend's question will, no doubt, remind authorities who have not used them of their powers, and I do not consider that there is any need at present for me to bring the matter more directly to the notice of local authorities generally.

Captain Strickland: Has it been considered advisable to make this numbering of houses compulsory rather than at the request of the Ministry, particularly in


view of the difficulty in discerning some of them, and will the right hon. Gentleman consider making it compulsory for street names to be more legible than they are at present?

Sir J. Mellor: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Postmaster-General in order to see whether it would not be in the interests of both Departments?

Sir J. Anderson: I will look into the matter further.

Mr. Kirby: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, having in mind the great importance of the city of Liverpool in time of war and the necessity to protect its population engaged on work of national importance, he will, when considering air-raid precautions schemes in the city, consult the Minister of Health, the Minister of Transport, and the Liverpool City Council, as to the desirability of reviving the Everton tunnel scheme which, if proceeded with, would greatly relieve the city's traffic problem, provide much-needed employment and, at the same time, provide a perfect bomb-proof shelter capable of protecting many thousands of persons in a thickly populated area of the city?

Sir J. Anderson: The problem of air-raid shelters is one which must be considered as a whole. This problem is now under close review and, until the general policy has been settled, I should prefer not to express an opinion on the desirability of any particular scheme.

Mr. Kirby: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the latter part of my question in which I ask for consideration of the matter in conjunction with the Ministries of Transport and Health, because it affects not only air-raid precautions but the traffic-system industry and other matters arising in the execution of the work?

Sir J. Anderson: As soon as the general policy has been settled, I shall certainly be prepared to consider this particular project in consultation with the other Departments concerned.

Mr. Bellenger: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a decision on the general policy?

Sir J. Anderson: I recognise the great urgency and importance of the matter, and I hope that a decision will be come to very soon indeed.

Mr. Logan: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will furnish the fullest statistics relating to the city of Liverpool in regard to the requirements and response of volunteers for the purposes of air-raid precautions and other services?

Sir J. Anderson: My approximate estimate of the personnel required in Liverpool is 12,500 men and 6,500 women for air-raid general precautions and 4,000 men for the emergency fire service. My information regarding the response of volunteers is, of course, derived from the City Council, from whose last statement I learn that over 18,000 men and over 12,000 women have volunteered for the general precautions services and nearly 1,300 for the fire services.

Mr. Logan: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the circular issued by the Liverpool City Council in regard to this matter to those responsible for the efficiency of air-raid precautions in the city?

Sir J. Anderson: The hon. Gentleman will gather from my reply that there is no deficiency in numbers in Liverpool, except in regard to the fire services.

Mr. R. Gibson: Are the figures proportionate to the population, has the size of the city been taken into account, and would the figures be proportionate for any other seaport?

Sir J. Anderson: The initiative rests with the local authority, who, presumably, take all these matters into account.

TELEPHONES IN SCHOOLS, SCOTLAND.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many primary, advanced, and secondary schools, respectively, there are in each of the administrative areas in Scotland, respectively; how many of each of said groups of schools are supplied with telephones connected with post office exchanges; and whether he has any statement to make regarding increasing the number of schools supplied with such telephones?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): As the answer is long and contains a number of figures I will, with

Statement regarding Telephones in Schools in Administrative Areas in Scotland.


(November, 1938.)


Education Area.
Schools, with or without advanced divisions, conducted under the Day Schools Code.
Schools with post-primary courses covering not more than three years, conducted under the Secondary Schools Regulations.
Schools with post-primary courses covering not less than five years, collected under the Secondary Schools Regulations.


Number of schools.
Number with telephones.
Number of schools.
Number with telephones.
Number of schools.
Number with telephones.


Counties,








Aberdeen
…
215
—
9
—
8
—


Angus
…
98
20
—
—
5
5


Argyll
…
148
1
5
—
3
3


Ayr
…
149
—
6
—
11
5


Banff
…
68
1
4
—
6
—


Berwick
…
48
—
—
—
1
—


Bute
…
19
—
—
—
1
1


Caithness
…
55
—
3
—
2
—


Clackmannan
…
15
—
—
—
3
2


Dumfries
…
93
1
5
3
1
1


Dunbarton
…
50
—
—
—
9
—


East Lothian
…
34
—
—
—
4
—


Fife
…
148
—
5
1
8
2


Inverness
…
212
1
3
1
4
2


Kincardine
…
44
—
—
—
2
—


Kirkcudbright
…
52
—
2
—
1
—


Lanark
…
210
9
7
2
13
13


Midlothian
…
60
6
—
—
4
4


Moray and Nairn
…
55
1
3
—
5
—


Orkney
…
51
—
1
—
2
—


Peebles
…
20
—
—
—
1
1


Perth and Kinross
…
160
—
1
—
6
2


Renfrew
…
80
—
5
—
9
9


Ross and Cromarty
…
124
—
4
—
4
1


Roxburgh
…
59
4
1
1
2
2


Selkirk
…
20
—
—
—
2
1


Stirling
…
88
5
1
1
4
4


Sutherland
…
35
—
5
1
2
—


West Lothian
…
43
—
—
—
4
2


Wigtown
…
46
—
2
—
2
—


Zetland
…
65
1
—
—
1
1


Burghs.








Aberdeen
…
38
2
—
—
5
5


Dundee
…
39
6
—
—
5
5


Edinburgh
…
100
91
1
—
13
13


Glasgow
…
215
13
3
2
23
21


Total
…
2,956
162
76
12
176
105

I understand that the question of increasing the number of telephones in schools is under consideration in several areas, and I feel that this matter may properly be left to the discretion of the local education authorities concerned.

the hon. and learned member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

SPECIAL AREAS.

Mr. Logan: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is his intention to grant increased loan facilities to the distressed


areas, and whether he will state his proposals for easing the distress in the city of Liverpool, and other areas not at present included in the existing Act?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given to the hon. Members for Everton (Mr. Kirby) and Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) on 17th November.

Mr. Logan: Seeing that the answer given to my colleague contained no information at all, is it not possible for the hon. Gentleman to give me an answer as to whether, in regard to Liverpool, there is any intention on the part of the Ministry to do anything to redress the difficulties of the able-bodied unemployed in that city?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: With regard to the proposal as to the Government dealing with certain areas where there is heavy unemployment, I cannot anticipate the terms of the Bill, but I would remind the hon. Member of the existence of the Liverpool Corporation Act, 1936, which does give the city council power to develop what are in effect trading estates.

Mr. Logan: Is not the hon. Gentleman able to give me a specific answer, Yes or No, to my question: Is it the intention of the Ministry to include the able-bodied unemployed as a national charge? The hon. Gentleman ought to know what he is going to do.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member must a wait the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Kirby: Cannot the hon. Gentleman give us a reply, instead of asking us to wait for it?

DOCK LABOUR, THE HARTLEPOOLS.

Mr. White: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has received any report from the National Joint Council of Dock Labour on the experiment being made at the Hartlepools, requiring one attendance for signing only each day?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir.

Mr. White: Is it not the intention of my hon. Friend to make some inquiry as to the results of this experiment, having regard to the interest that is taken in it?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I quite appreciate the importance of the experiment and the interest that is taken in it. A number of communications have passed, but there has been nothing in the nature of a formal report. If and when such a report is received, I will certainly bring it to the notice of the House.

INSURANCE COMPANIES (AGENTS' COMMISSION).

Mr. Sexton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give an explanation of payments for commission, referred to in Cmd. 5722, page 7, and state to whom these payments are made?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The figures referred to are derived from the returns made by insurance companies to the Board of Trade under the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, in Forms set out in Schedules to that Act. Commission is one of the items in those Forms. It is, I am advised, not defined in the Act, but is understood to refer to the commission allowed by insurance companies to persons acting as their agents in accordance with insurance practice.

Mr. Sexton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, for every £1 that goes to the injured workman who risks his life, 3s. 4d. goes to the recipients of commission, who risk nothing but their money?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think I could accept that statement. The matter is a very complicated one.

ESTATE DUTY (ASSESSMENT).

Sir William Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Inland Revenue, after settling the amount of death duty payable on the sale of an estate after the testator's death for the best price then obtainable, are in the habit of applying for additional duty in the event of such estate being subsequently re-sold by the purchaser for a larger sum; that serious hardship is caused by this practice; and whether steps will be taken to discontinue it where there is no allegation of fraud or collusion between the representatives of the testator and the subsequent vendor?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in suggesting that it is the practice of the Inland Revenue Department, in cases in which the valuation of property has been settled, to claim additional estate duty by reason of a subsequent sale of the property at a higher figure than the valuation originally settled. The value of real estate for the purposes of the Estate Duty is prescribed by law to be the price which the property would fetch if sold in the open market at the time of death. In arriving at that figure, regard is naturally had to the prices actually realised on the sale of the property, and the Courts have held that, where executors sell an estate in one lot and the property is sold again shortly afterwards in several lots, the price realised on the second sale may properly be taken into account in determining the value. Once, however, the value has been settled for Estate Duty purposes, it is not later revised in the light of any subsequent sale.

Sir W. Davison: Do not the Treasury consider it very unfair that, when a property has been sold for a fixed sum, and the purchaser subsequently, without any collusion with the executors, sells it for a larger sum, the assessment should be reopened, while they refuse to reopen assessments on property which is re-sold by the purchaser for a smaller sum? Is not that very unfair?

Captain Wallace: I think that my hon. Friend has rather missed the point. If the assessment has once been definitely made, it is not reopened.

Sir W. Davison: I am referring to a case in which the figure for the assessment has been agreed. Is not my right hon. and gallant Friend aware of the recent case where the executors were placed in very serious difficulties by the facts stated in my question?

Captain Wallace: I am aware of the recent case, but I cannot add to the very carefully considered answer which I have given.

Mr. Macquisten: Surely it is the person who buys and sells at a profit that should be additionally assessed, not the estate of the deceased?

PARLIAMENT SQUARE.

Mr. Marcus Samuel: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what decision has yet been arrived at as to the future of Westminster Green; and whether he can give an assurance that sympathetic consideration will be given to ensuring that this historic site shall remain an open space for all time?

Captain Wallace: My hon. Friend is not, I think, referring to an open space but to the site of an existing building which, if the building were demolished, might be added to Parliament Square. This proposal involves financial difficulties which have not yet been overcome, and the matter is still under the consideration of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: In view of the urgency of this matter, could not the Financial Secretary take some steps to get a decision one way or the other at an early date?

Captain Wallace: I am afraid I cannot say more than that it is under the consideration of the Chancellor.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.

Sir George Ernest Schuster, K.C.S.I., K.C.M.G., C.B.E., M.C., for the Borough of Walsall.

John Morgan, esquire, for the County of York (West Riding) (Doncaster Division).

DEATH OF HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF NORWAY.

The Prime Minister: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to express the deep concern of this House at the loss which His Majesty has sustained by the death of Her Majesty the Queen of Norway; to condole with His Majesty on this melancholy occasion; and to pray His Majesty that he will be graciously pleased to express to His Majesty the King of Norway, the profound sympathy of this House with His Majesty and the Government and People of Norway.
Three years ago my predecessor moved in this House, that a Vote of Condolence be presented to His Majesty King George V upon the death of his sister, Her Royal Highness Princess Victoria. To-day it is my duty to move that a similar Address be presented to His Majesty King George VI, upon the death


of the last surviving member of his father's family. Members of this House will have read with emotion the touching message His Majesty the King of Norway has given out. That message speaks of the end of Her Majesty's work on earth. That work was inspired throughout by the same sense of devotion to public service as distinguished the whole life of our own King George V. Her Majesty's personal taste was for quiet country things. Yet in 1905 she and her husband were called, in unprecedented circumstances, to the Throne of Norway. With devotion they addressed themselves to this, their work on earth. The measure of their success is the sense of loss and personal sympathy for His Majesty King Haakon and the members of his family that the Norwegian people feel to-day. We here mourn the death of an English Princess whose gentle influence helped so much to build up and confirm those warm feelings which we have for the Norwegian people.

Mr. Attlee: I rise to associate myself and my colleagues on these benches with what has been so admirably said by the Prime Minister in commending this Resolution to the House. All of us desire to join in expressing our sympathy with His Majesty the King and the Royal Family, and also with His Majesty King Haakon and the people of Norway in their bereavement. We all know how close are the ties of affection which unite the members of the Royal Family, and how deeply any severance is felt. The gracious and accomplished lady whose loss we mourn to-day was a bond of union between three peoples. The daughter of our own King Edward VII, wife of a Prince of Denmark, she was called upon at a critical moment to become Queen of Norway, which after many years had regained its independence. She brought to that high position the traditions of two great democratic countries, and rightly earned the devotion of the Norwegian people.

Sir A. Sinclair: I wish to support the Resolution and to associate my hon. Friends and myself with the eloquent tributes which have been paid by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to a gracious Queen and a beloved member of our Royal Family. So close and intimate are the ties between the King and his people that it is natural and inevitable

for us to share his joys and his griefs. To-day we unite in expressing to him our condolence in his bereavement and our sorrow at the passing of an English Princess and Norway's Queen.

Question put, and agreed to, nemine contradicente.

Resolved,
 That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to express the deep concern of this House at the loss which His Majesty has sustained by the death of Her Majesty the Queen of Norway; to condole with His Majesty on this melancholy occasion; and to pray His Majesty that he will be graciously pleased to express to His Majesty the King of Norway, the profound sympathy of this House with His Majesty and the Government and People of Norway.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — PREVENTION OF FRAUD (INVESTMENTS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

4.4 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Owing to the desire of the House to discuss later a Motion on an important subject, it has been arranged that this Debate shall be cut short. I shall certainly do my best to make the maximum of time available for other Members, and to explain as briefly as possible the main lines of the Bill whose Second Reading I have moved. I do not think it is a very difficult task to explain the main lines upon which this Bill is drafted. When it comes to examining the Bill line by line and Clause by Clause, then I admit there are many and necessary complications, but they are in the nature of Committee rather than of Second Reading points. I can certainly give the House the assurance that when the Bill receives a Second Reading and when we go into Committee, everyone upon that Committee will have one common object, and that is to make the Bill as effective as possible in dealing with the rogue, and to make it as little hampering as possible in dealing with the honest man. I shall certainly be prepared to accept any proposal coming from any quarter which tends to improve the Bill and to strengthen its effect.
I cannot help facing the House in rather an apologetic manner when introducing a Bill of this nature. We have been so accustomed in past weeks to dealing with matters of the greatest moment, matters vitally touching the life, and, indeed, the death of the peoples of this country and the world, that it is rather an anti-climax to come down this afternoon and to take part in what is always an invidious task—that of protecting the fool from his folly. Anyone who has made any study of the share-pushing activities and of the frauds which have resulted has been astounded, not so much at the intelligence of the criminal, though that is often great enough, but at the gullibility of the victim. If ever there was a class of

people to whom this House might rightly say, "You have been warned," it is the class of person who suffers from the activities of the share-pusher. By notices in the Press, by pamphlets which have been distributed through the Post Office, by messages through the B.B.C., by questions put in Parliament by Members on all sides of the House, the advice has continually been given to people that before they buy or sell shares they should adopt the simple device of consulting a banker, a broker or a solicitor.
A right hon. Gentleman opposite says that is not saying much, but the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that there has been no case where these activities have succeeded when that ordinary precaution of acting through an experienced professional has, in fact, been adopted. Yet despite that advice, time after time we find instances where these people have parted with their life's savings in circumstances which would make the smallest child, one would have thought, clutch more closely to its pocket money. Although it may be a case of protecting the foolish from their folly, the House cannot, and in past years has shown that it will not, sit and look on indifferently while these things go on. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I hope I am not interrupting the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Perhaps he is selling some shares to his right hon. Friend.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: The right hon. Gentleman must not say that. He knows that we do not sell shares in the Co-operative movement.

Mr. Stanley: During the proceedings of a committee which investigated recently these share-pushing activities, one witness gave evidence which may have been exaggerated but was formidable, to the effect that as much as £5,000,000 a year was lost through the activities of these gentlemen. From the point of view of this House what, of course, makes it all the worse is the type of victim and the character of the loss. If the victim were a rich man and if the loss meant to him only the loss of a luxury or comfort, I think the House would say that he must bear the responsibility. But, in fact, the victims of these activities are of quite a different character, usually the widow, the pensioner, the retired man living out the rest of his life on savings, or the spinster, and the loss which they suffer is not the


loss of a luxury or comfort but very often the loss of the only barrier winch stands between them and destitution.
I think there is no one in the House who knows as much about the methods and the activities of these men as does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. Johnston). He knows as much about them as any police official does, and he is probably as much feared and hated by them as any police official in the country. The right hon. Gentleman will bear me out that our sense of the folly of the victims is overwhelmed by the pity that one feels at the tragic results of it. These are activities that all of us want to stop. But it is not always so easy to define and agree upon the actions that we are to take to stop them. The difference, after all, between share-pushing activities of this kind and ordinary legitimate share dealing lies not so much in the act that is done as in the intention of the doer. It is quite possible, in a legitimate, aboveboard share-dealing transaction, for the purchaser to lose his money.

Mr. Bellenger: Hear, hear.

Mr. Stanley: I am sorry that that statement seems to hit the hon. Gentleman on a sore point. But the difference is that in the share-pushing activities there is neither the belief, nor the intention nor the hope that the purchaser shall ever do anything else. It is really share-dealing only in name and is a confidence trick on another line, where the worthless share takes the place of the gold brick or the prisoner in Spain or the bank notes wrapped in a parcel or the other machinery of the confidence trick man. This is not the first time that the House has occupied itself with some attempt to curb the activities of these people. Hon. Members who were in the 1924 Parliament will recollect that during that period there was considerable attention given to this question. There was the Greene Committee, which in the years 1925 and 1926 was considering the whole question of company legislation. That Committee devoted a very considerable time to this aspect of share-dealing. Attention was concentrated largely on the question of the hawking of shares. The Committee felt that the remedy was to prevent the house-to-house canvass, by which the purchaser was induced to enter into an agreement.
In consequence the Companies Act, 1929, included a Section which was intended to prevent this practice. But in effect that Clause has been largely inoperative owing to the fact that while it prevented house-to-house personal calls it left the use of the telephone unrestricted and it was difficult to determine what was "house-to-house," and the share-pushing canvasser got round the Clause cleverly by going first to a house in one town and then to a house in another town, and then coming back to the first town again. There was the difficulty that it did not prevent calls on those who were not clients, and by the ease with which some ostensible honest transaction could be used as a ground bait, the share-pusher could gather these people as a clientele and then proceed to push his worthless shares. Owing to all those facts the Clause has had little effect in curbing these people.
Since that time we have seen some of the worst frauds of this character known in the history of this country. Nobody in this House is ignorant of the case of Jacob Factor, an American citizen, who came here, and, through the agency of Broad Street Press, was able in 18 months to return to America richer, it is estimated, by some £1,200,000. It is true that some of his associates were caught and sentenced, but he himself was able to leave the country before action was taken, and, unfortunately, since then every effort to enable him to be extradited in order to stand his trial has been unsuccessful. Since then—the right hon. Gentleman will know many more instances than I do—there have been such cases as Murdoch and Barr, Ward, Daw and Company and the Spiro fraud, and in the last few months my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has been prosecuting in the case of Tanfield. In these cases convictions have been obtained and heavy sentences have been inflicted, but in all these cases the damage has been done before prosecution has been undertaken and before the punishment has been given. Large sums of money have been extracted from the public, and it is little satisfaction to the victim of that loss that afterwards the person who has defrauded him or her should go to prison.
So much was the feeling of this House stirred, very largely I think by the action and questions of the right hon. Gentleman, that my predecessor in office, in


December, 1936, appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Sir Archibald Bodkin. That committee produced a most valuable report which is the basis of this legislation, although, for reasons which I will explain to the House, we have in the course of drafting this Bill made considerable changes in the machinery that they suggested. I do not want to weary the House this afternoon with the minor recommendations of that committee any more than I would weary it with the minor points in the Bill which I am introducing, but the main lines of that committee's recommendations were, first of all, registration—the registration of all those who were going to carry on the business of dealing in stocks and shares; secondly, action to prevent circularisation for the purpose of getting people to enter into agreements to buy or sell participations; and, thirdly, the amendment of the Larceny Act under which prosecutions for this type of fraud are undertaken. In order to deal with the definition of false pretences, under the Larceny Act the false pretence you make must be a false pretence as to an existing fact. Many of these share-pushing persons—it may be the canvasser, the man who is pushing the shares—do not tell the public anything false about the existing facts; what they give them are dishonest promises and forecasts for the future. False pretences should cover not only statements as to existing facts but future promises as well.
Although, sometimes in a different form, all these three main recommendations will be found to be covered in the Bill, the principal one, of course, is the question of registration. It was the belief of the committee that if these people had to go through the process of registration which would enable some authority to keep track of them, it would reduce the opportunities for their activities very considerably. But the registration, as proposed by the Bodkin Committee, was to my mind and the mind of my advisers too rigid in its form really to be an effective obstacle to the activity of the share-pusher. Registration under their scheme would not be at the discretion of the Registrar; it would be automatic. If certain projected conditions as to sureties and as to lack of previous convictions were followed, whatever

the situation and whatever the knowledge might be as to the person who desired to be registered, if he were able to fulfil these specific conditions, then automatically registration must proceed. Consequently, once he was on the register, there was no power to remove him from it except by application to the court, and the court could remove him only on certain specific grounds, such as a conviction, or, in some cases, as the result of a civil action.
That appeared to me to have certain difficulties. First of all, as I have said, there is no discrimination by the registering authority, and by skill and ingenuity the sharepusher might fulfil the conditions and the Registrar be in the invidious and absurd position, by registering him, of giving him full permission to carry on his nefarious work. Secondly, the process of removal from registration by application to the Court was a long one, and during that delay arising, not only might the public be losing more money, but the share-pusher might be putting himself out of the reach of the law. Thirdly, so stringent were the conditions laid down, upon which the Court could revoke the registration that though you might have in your possession evidence that was conclusive that in fact this man was running a share-pushing business, yet if those conditions were not fulfilled you would be unable to get the Court to revoke his registration. I do not believe that it is possible to deal effectively with these people upon those lines.
The essence of the treatment of this problem must be speed and lack of rigidity. If you lay down too closely the conditions which they must fulfil or the acts which they must or must not do, then, with their skill, they will soon find some way legally of avoiding what you have laid down. You must try to devise a system which itself is sufficiently flexible to deal with the different devices as they find them and as they occur. I came to the conclusion—and I believe it is the only effective means of dealing with this problem—that if we were to have some system of registration or other, it was better to go all out and definitely to have not a system of automatic registration, but a system of licensing by the Board of Trade, which would enable the exercise of discretion by the Board of Trade as to whether they did or did not license an


individual, and would enable revocation of the licence by executive action. They are, I admit, wide powers to give to a Government Department, but I am perfectly certain that, unless the House is willing to give powers of that nature to a Government Department, no other means will be found of dealing effectively with this menace. That, therefore, is the system which we have adopted in this Bill.
If hon. Members will turn to the Bill they will see that Clause 1 sets out the machinery for this licence. There are to be two kinds of licence for those who carry on the business of dealing in securities: First of all, the principal's licence for the firm or for the partner in a partnership, and, secondly, a representative's licence which is to be held by anyone authorised by them to carry out actual transactions of dealing in stocks and shares. Hon. Members will also see the proviso. I will not deal with that now because it paves the way to a system of exemptions which we propose in Clauses 12 and 13, and which is designed to exclude from this licensing system those firms or associations with which we can deal either by their own domestic systems of discipline or by inquiry into the individual cases. Clause 2 merely provides for applications for these licences and hon. Members will notice that it is to be a yearly licence only and that application for its renewal must be made every year.
Clause 3 is an important one because it deals with the conditions under which the Board of Trade as the licensing authority may either refuse to grant a licence or revoke a licence which has once been granted. On top of page 4 of the Bill hon. Members will see what these grounds are. They are the fact that the applicant has refused to give information, that he has been convicted either of fraud or of some offence against the Act, that he has committed a breach of the rules—and I will deal with the rules later—or—and these are the important words, because they give to the Board of Trade a wide discretion—because
of any other circumstances … which … reflect discredit upon his method of conducting business.''
That is a wide discretion to give, but I am sure that, if you were to confine the power to refuse a licence to people who had committed some specific offence, inevitably you would have the absurd

situation of a man whom we might well know from his past record to be a share-pusher and who we knew would be intending to use the licence to deal in stocks and shares only for the purpose of share-pushing; knowing all that, we should be compelled to grant him a licence and allow him to carry on with his work.

Mr. T. Johnston: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves Clause 3 will he say whether it is his intention that a man who may have been convicted in the United Kingdom of fraud shall be refused a licence, whereas a man who may have been convicted for fraud in Canada may still be automatically given a licence? I am speaking of Sub-section (2), in page 4, line 10.

Mr. Stanley: We can look into that. That is a different point. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that if a man had been convicted in Canada he would be caught under Paragraph (b) as that would be something reflecting discredit upon his method of conducting business. Whether it would be better to keep it on these broad lines or to refer to a conviction in any way is a matter that we could look into, but either way, even as it is drafted now, a conviction in Canada or in a foreign country would reflect discredit upon his method of conducting business and would enable us to refuse him a licence. I think it is clear that, if these wide powers are to be given to the Board of Trade, there must be some tribunal to whom an applicant who is aggrieved either by refusal of a licence or by the revocation of a licence should be able to appeal. Clause 4 constitutes such a tribunal. It is to consist of three persons, one of whom, the Chairman, is to be a member of the legal profession and to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and the other two are to be persons appointed by the Treasury. It is essential in a case of this kind that the members of the tribunal should be people of considerable financial experience who should be able to deal with what may well be extremely complicated cases.
Clause 5 is a Clause of some importance, because it empowers the Board of Trade to make rules for the conduct of business by those people whom they have licensed. Paragraph (a) gives power to make rules for determining the manner and circumstances in which they shall act.


The object is to enable us to make for these people the same sort of rules, by which they will have to be guided as, for instance, the Stock Exchange makes for the guidance for its own members. Under the powers given by this Clause we shall be able to make rules dealing with the practice of calling by representatives of the dealer, and to deal with it much more effectively by a rule of that kind than it was dealt with under the Companies Act of 1929. We can deal deal with this question of approach to the non-client and try to approximate the conditions under which these people carry on their business, to the conditions under which a member of a recognised Stock Exchange has to carry on his.
I believe this to be perhaps the most valuable provision in the Bill. By it you can proscribe those methods of business, such as circularisation and means of approach which we know to be essential if the sharepusher is to succeed. In order to stop them, it will not be necessary to prove motives of fraud. It will be enough to point to a breach of the regulations in order to bring a practice of that kind to an end. The House will notice that these draft rules have to be published in order that any objection to them may be stated, and that in their final form they are to be laid before the House of Commons.
In dealing with Clause 1, I referred to the fact that we desire as far as possible to exempt from the necessity for the annual licence those classes or those individuals who are already being dealt with under internal disciplinary methods, or whose standing and repute is such that no one would for a moment pretend that they ever have been or could be of use for the purpose of share-pushing. If hon. Members will look at Clauses 12 and 13 they will see set up there the machinery for exemption. Clause 12 gives power to the Board of Trade to exclude from the operation of this licensing Clause any body of persons dealing in securities, or any recognised association of dealers which the Board of Trade chooses to recognise as such. That includes the London Stock Exchange, which by the interpretation Clause is recognised in the Bill as an exempted body, and other stock exchanges, in so far as their constitution and the overlooking of their membership and their rules

of business are such as to justify their exemption.
It deals also with a large class of people to whom the Bodkin Committee drew particular attention. Those are the people known as outside brokers, people who deal, the great majority of them, quite honestly, in stocks and shares, but who for one reason or other do not join any of the recognised stock exchanges. There may be many reasons for that. Sometimes it is the expense of joining a stock exchange, or it may be the fact that it is not a whole-time business. As hon. Members know, members of a stock exchange may not carry on other business. It may be that in their particular class of business the rules in regard to advertisement or circularisation hit them very hard, and yet the business they carry on is not only an honest one but is very often an essential business.
These outside brokers are very often the only people who are able to place shares in little known industrial concerns, which perhaps are not quoted on the Stock Exchange, and with regard to which dealings on the various stock exchanges would hardly ever occur. Very often, too, the executors of an estate find that for some limited class of share about the only outlet they can find is through the outside broker. The Bodkin Committee expressed the hope that these outside brokers would form themselves into an association, draw up their own constitution and formulate their own rules to discipline their own members. Since the issue of that report such an association has been formed, and they are now, I believe, in the process of drawing up their constitution and deciding upon the kind of regulations they will impose upon their members. If that constitution is satisfactory and if those regulations are sufficiently stringent, then it will be possible for the Board of Trade to grant them recognition, which will mean exemption for their members from the licensing provisions.
Clause 13 deals with the exemption not of organised classes but of individuals and individual businesses which, for one reason or other, are not able to form themselves into associations and have, therefore, to apply for exemption singly and individually. The type of business here dealt with is that of the bank, the issuing house and the trust company, and complicated provisions are set up under


this Clause which have to be fulfilled by these businesses before exemption can be granted. Even if these conditions are fulfilled, there is no obligation upon the Board of Trade to grant exemption to an applicant, but, generally speaking, the line that has been taken is to try and make it possible for exemption to be obtained by these businesses, which are wholesalers and not retailers of stocks and shares. The bank or issuing house which sells or issues stocks and shares personally deals with a broker or other business house and not by direct approach to the client.
These exemptions even when granted may be revoked. Hon. Members will see from page 17 that they will be revoked is they fail to continue to satisfy the conditions laid down in the Clause, or if there has been some material change since the exemption was granted. We have had a case where a perfectly honest business which undoubtedly under some machinery of this kind would have been able to acquire exemption was afterwards bought by a share-pusher, and its goodwill and its honest reputation were used to get money from the unsuspecting public. Any change of that kind, the sale of the business to someone else, would be a material change under which the Board of Trade might be entitled to revoke the licence.
There is another important question which arises in connection with licensing, and that is in regard to unit trusts. In recent months we have had a very excellent report from the Anderson Committee, which sat under the chairmanship of a distinguished member of this House, dealing with the whole question of unit trusts. Much of that committee's report is not relevant to this particular legislation, but it deals with one point which is relevant, and that is that the unit trust is a possible vehicle of fraud. We deal with that in Clause 14. There we lay down—it is also dealt with in Clause 1—that exemption may be given to the unit trust provided it has an approved trustee, and we lay down in Clause 14 what are the conditions on which the Board may declare some body to be an approved trustee. That is in line with the recommendations of the Anderson Committee, and it is an effective safeguard against the unit trust being used as a vehicle for fraud.

Mr. Bellenger: Does that exemption apply to the management of the trust?

Mr. Stanley: Provided the unit trust has an approved trustee, then the whole of the trust is exempted. Of course, only such organisations will be approved as trustees who, we know, will themselves make a most careful inquiry into the unit trust and the way its business is being carried on. I now turn to Clause 8, which deals with the position of the industrial and provident societies. I have heard a good many complaints—the right hon. Gentleman has brought to my notice several extremely bad cases—where legislation dealing with industrial and provident societies has been used to enable fraudulent dealings to go on. Under the Act of 1893 societies wishing to register under that Act were able to do so at much less cost than it would take to register a company under the Companies Act, and at the same time they were exempted from some of the more stringent provisions, such as the publication of information, which we find in the Companies Act, and with which any new company formed would have to comply.
That could have only been meant by the Legislature to be a privilege granted to societies with definite objects of a definite character. It could never have been meant as an easier and cheaper alternative for the ordinary money-making company, in helping it to have an alternative to the Companies Act as a means of formation. Undoubtedly, the use of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act has in several cases in recent years been a vehicle for gross fraud upon the public. Under Clause 8, in future the Registrar will have the power to refuse registration under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act unless he is satisfied that the company is a bona-fide co-operative society or, to use a comprehensive term, it is a philanthropic society of the type we know so well, where people pay money, with very little hope of return, for such purposes as slum clearance. Under this new provision the type of society for which the Act was intended will still be able to obtain registration without any difficulty, but it will be possible for the Registrar to prevent an honest society, registered under this Act, from being brought into disrepute by the use of the same machinery by people who are intentionally fraudulent.
There will be no power under this legislation to cancel an existing registration unless a society which has been registered at any time after July of this year makes an invitation to subscribe. If they do the Registrar will have power to cancel the registration which has been given. There are provisions enabling a society which is now registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, to make up their mind within a year to transform themselves into an ordinary company under the Companies Act without the payment of stamp duty or registration fees. Clause 9 is intended to deal with another loophole. There have been one or two cases of fraud by companies registered as building societies. We are engaged in stopping loopholes in the Industrial and Provident Societies Act and we do not want that kind of company, having been stopped under that Act, to turn its attention to the Building Societies Act and try to get a footing there. Under the provisions of Clause 9, with the consent of the Treasury, the Registrar will be able to forbid the issue by any building society of an invitation to the public to purchase its shares, and if while this interdict is in existence a society proceeds to do so it will be liable to a heavy penalty.
Clause 10 is the answer to the request of the Bodkin Committee that something should be done to extend the definition of false pretences under the Larceny Act and make easier a conviction in the case of share-pushing. Under the Larceny Act false pretences must consist of a statement about existing circumstances, but really the false pretences of the share-pusher's canvasser is not what he says about existing circumstances but what he says about the future and the promises he makes. Under the new definition false or reckless promises or forecasts may equally be a cause of conviction. Later on in the Clause hon. Members will see that the penalty for conspiring to defraud, which under the Larceny Act is limited to two years, is brought up to a maximum of seven years.
Finally, there remains only the question of circularisation in Clause 11. The right hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan will agree with me that it would be difficult indeed for these people to operate without the possibility of circularising the public. Clause 11 forbids all

circularisation dealing with the objects set out in Clause 10; the sale or buying of ordinary securities, the acquisition of unit rights in such schemes as mushroom farms, or commodity pools. Exemption is provided for members of recognised stock exchanges or those licensed under Clause 1, and regular commodity dealers will still be able to circularise their clients with regard to the commodities in which they have been dealing, but the circularising of commodity pools or anything like the mushroom farm which has been the latest development of the share-pusher's activity will not be allowed.
I have tried to give a short account of the general principles of the Bill. We have had a great deal of consultation with many interests as to its terms. There is always the danger in a Bill of this kind, when you are attempting to stop a loophole against the dishonest man, that you will create quite unnecessary and unjustifiable trouble for the honest man. By a great deal of consultation with all interests and by publishing the Bill in the summer in order to allow comments upon it, we hope that we have avoided this. I saw a letter in the "Times" to-day from a gentleman in the city complaining about the general lines of the Bill. All I can say is that the attitude he adopts is not the attitude I find among any responsible firms I have consulted in the city who will be the people handicapped in any way by the Bill. They have all taken the attitude that they are perfectly prepared to accept a certain inconvenience and, as it is put, even some loss of dignity, provided we stop the practices which we are out to stop. They feel as we do that these share-pushing frauds in the past have been the cause of great suffering to individuals and that the publicity which is given to activities of this kind does them no good, casts great discredit upon them, and makes people lose confidence in legitimate transactions. At the same time we have to remember that the share-pushing which we wish to stop is only an infinitesimal fraction of the everyday transactions.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. T. Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman has said, quite properly and truthfully, that the swindling of fools by knaves is not purely a post-war phenomenon. I recollect that 200 years ago Oliver Goldsmith wrote in the "Vicar of Wakefield" a description of how Moses was


induced to trade Dobbin the colt for a gross of green spectacles by a plausible stranger. Nothing that we can do in this Bill or elsewhere can protect the born gull from the born crook. We welcome the Bill for its effort, though far from being complete or comprehensive, to make the way of the swindler in investments more difficult than it is now, and to the extent that the right hon. Gentleman has done this we heartily compliment him. The Labour party has not thought it desirable to move a reasoned Amendment upon any of the points of omission or commission in the Bill, as they have no wish to make party capital out of the issue. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that when Amendments and improvements are suggested in the Committee stage, he will consider them carefully and impartially on their merits.
The extent of this evil may be gauged from the report of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police for 1937. In London alone every ten days last year there was the prosecution of a share-pusher. I believe I am right in saying that the profits of these people last year ranged from £250,000 downwards. This year unfortunately, owing to the Wetnall Jenkins case the sums involved have been much heavier, as in that case alone about £1,000,000 was involved. Despite the hesitancy of the Bodkin Committee to accept the estimate of £5,000,000 per annum as the amount of swindling I am perfectly certain that it is an underestimate—not an over-estimate. Many of these rogues have escaped. Although there was a prosecution in London every ten days in 1937 it is impossible to estimate how many of these rogues escaped prosecution. When fled beyond the seas and we cannot extradite them, they are exempt under our extradition laws and can snap their fingers at Scotland Yard. Between 1910 and 1936 Scotland Yard knew of 177 firms in London engaged in this traffic.
It is a gross mistake to imagine that it is only the greedy and wealthy investor who is skinned by the share-pushers. Many, indeed, of the victims are humble folk. The majority can be described, I think, as easy meat classes, clergymen heading the list, doctors coming next, lawyers third, and spinsters and widows fourth. But there are any number of these spinsters and widows, many of whom are in exceptionally poor

circumstances. I have known a number of cases in which they have had all their insurance money and all their compensation money which has been given to them in a lump sum extracted at one swoop by a plausible share-pusher. Sometimes the investments of these people are made from patriotic motives. They are not all people who are looking for large returns on their investments. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect the mushroom unit ramps which I tried in vain to stop before the damage was done. They were very highly spiced with patriotic literature. People were invited to assist in growing more food: "Why import food from abroad when you can raise it at home?" It was splendidly baited stuff, as in the Cucklington case. I paid a tribute to the right hon. Gentleman in trying to stop that in time by a warning in this House, although I wish he could have done something more through the British Broadcasting Corporation. When that company collapsed in August of this year the assets were £6,000 and the liabilities £244,000. That is a quarter of a million pounds literally taken from people who imagined that they were assisting the country to grow more food.
Then there was the MacLean and Henderson case, the case of an old firm in my county town in Stirlingshire established since 1868. One day Spiro arrived, disguised himself under the name of Stanley, and offered £5,000 for the business. He buys it. But nobody knows that he has bought it. He worked behind this curtain with their notepaper; and hid his transaction through the banks. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman gave the banks a bouquet this afternoon. Spiro hid his transactions behind the banks. For instance, the Banca de Bilbao was an offender, as were the Anglo-African Corporation and others. He foisted worthless shares on to the British public for many months. He sold shares of the Scottish Gas Utilities Corporation, which had actually only 13s. 5d. worth of assets; I believe he sold about £100,000 worth of stock in that worthless concern. By the time the collapse came, in February, 1937, and Spiro bolted—he came back afterwards and someone in London gave him eight years—he had got in plunder from MacLean and Henderson alone, a reputable firm which the President of the Board of Trade would have licensed


immediately, £500,000, and as was stated in court, he had got away with £189,000 in cash. I recollect that before the right hon. Gentleman's arrival at the Board of Trade, we wrote letters to his predecessor about this sort of thing in advance, and we were told that the London police would look with sympathy upon a prosecution if a private citizen would initiate it. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman that from the time he went to the Board of Trade—whether it was a coincidence or whether it was due to his efforts, I do not know—the City of London Police and Scotland Yard have actively interfered with the activities of many of these nefarious gentlemen.

Mr. Stanley: I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to thank the Bodkin Committee for that.

Mr. Johnston: I think that before the Bodkin Committee was appointed, the Treasury solicitors were acting in this matter. The major criticisms we have to make against the Bill are partly of what is in the Bill and partly of what is not in it, but ought to be in it. First of all, when the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Bill before the Recess there was in what was then Clause 19 and what is now Clause 10 (Penalty for fraudulently inducing persons to invest money) the following offence:
Any dishonest concealment of material facts.
These words are not in the present Bill. I think that this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman might have spared a moment or two in his very interesting speech to tell us why he considered it right and proper, presumably in agreement with the Cabinet, to make it an offence to have a dishonest concealment of material facts when asking somebody to buy shares, and then later on to omit these words. Before the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill is concluded, I think there ought to be an explanation from the Government Front Bench as to why these important words have been dropped. I would remind hon. Members that in British Columbia, Section II of the 1935 Statute, which is supposed to be the tightest statute that is known against share-pushers, contains these words:
Any intentional omission to disclose any material fact.

In British Columbia, the Government thought it was right two or three months ago to put in those words. Now the words have been dropped from this Bill. In the same Clause in the eve-of-the Recess version of the Bill, it was an offence to promulgate or make any statement which the person making the statement could reasonably be expected to know to be false or misleading. Those words have been omitted from the present Bill. Now the maker of the statement must knowingly or recklessly make the misleading or deceptive statement. Will some hon. Member tell me how, particularly when a rogue was taken into court 12 or 18 months after committing the offence, it would be possible to prove that he knowingly or recklessly made a misleading statement? I am certain that the Solicitor-General would hesitate before going into court, 18 months after an offence had been committed, and seeking to prove or to get a conviction on a charge that a rogue had, 18 months earlier, knowingly or recklessly made the statement in question.
Why did the right hon. Gentleman weaken the Bill in this way? This was an essential part of the Bill. I think he weakened it because of the clamour of certain financial journalists in London. When the right hon. Gentleman introduced the first draft of his Bill before the Recess, any number of these gentlemen who write up or write down companies in the financial columns of the daily newspapers suddenly discovered that they might be had under this Clause for any deceptive or misleading statements which they made. They set up a clamour. This was too wide, it was not getting at the share-pushers but, if you please, at the honest gentlemen who write these paragraphs boosting shares, but who do not themselves sell shares. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have unnecessarily weakened the Bill. Lest the right hon. Gentleman should think that I have a bee in my bonnet about this matter, I would draw his attention to what was said by the editor of "Truth" last week. If there is any financial journal in the world which has had experience of hundreds of these rogues, and which has rim very grave financial risks with regard to libel in doing so, it is the newspaper called "Truth." I draw the attention of the Solicitor-General to the fact that last week


"Truth" said that, as a result of this weakening of Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill:
The sharepushers, whether in bucket shops, in the Press or in the city, have had their leases renewed.
That is the considered opinion of "Truth." My second difficulty about what is in the Bill is this. There is to be a prescribed fee for a licence before anyone can traffic in investments, but why is there to be no substantial deposit? Anyone who gets a licence to traffic will thereby be able to walk about the world giving the impression that the Government have "O.K.ed" him. We have never had that before. Previously, anybody who sold bucket-shop shares had to do so on his merits, but in future he will buy and sell shares with the consent of His Majesty's Government, and the Government will not take a penny from him in the way of a deposit. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider this aspect of the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman asks the police, he will find that it takes six months, nine months, a year or even 18 months to catch a rogue. Nine times out of 10 the rogue bolts, if the right hon. Gentleman and the police are not very smart. If he bolts, there is no prosecution, but if he is caught, who pays the expense of the prosecution? The State. The rogue's money is sunk in Switzerland or somewhere else. Why should there not be, as the Bodkin Committee unanimously recommended, a deposit of £500 from anybody who is licensed to traffic in shares?

Mr. Macquisten: The Stock Exchange wants one.

Mr. Johnston: Let them get their interest on their money, but let that £500 deposit be in the Treasury, so that in the event of there being a default and the person being a crook, or a swindler, at any rate there will be £500 with which to assist in paying the legal expenses of getting after him. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that such a provision should be included in the Bill, especially as it was the unanimous recommendation of the Bodkin Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) said that this is what the Stock Exchange does now. On the London Stock Exchange, before a man can operate, he has to deposit a minimum of £630, if he is the son of an existing broker, and if he has

no such relative to give him a start, he has to put down £3,000. In Edinburgh, they have to pay from £250 to £860. Yet, outside, it is proposed to give these licences without any deposit. It may be that the rogue himself will never apply for the licence, but, like Spiro, will send a nominee, some person with a perfectly innocent exterior and an honest past, to get the licence. Why should there not be a deposit of at least £500 lodged with the Government? Only last week the right hon. Gentleman had to bring back from Pretoria two of these rogues, and that cost the State £500 in one way or another before getting the prosecution started. It is not an unreasonable request to ask that there should be this deposit.
What is not in the Bill? First of all, I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken this opportunity of doing something to stop the misuse of the bank nominees system. Originally, it may have been devised for bona fide purposes of share transfer, it may originally have been devised for any decent and honourable purpose you like, but what is it doing now? Every bank forms a dummy company, calling itself Bank Nominees, Limited. If one goes to Somerset House and pays 1s. in order to see who are the shareholders in a particular corporation, one's purpose is now defeated. The purpose of the Companies Act is defeated. One is up against a stone wall. One finds, for instance, that £260,000 of shares are held by Bank Nominees, Limited, here, and £300,000 by Bank Nominees, Limited, there. The dangers of these concealments are obvious. First, there is the danger to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A shareholder buys stock in a company through Bank Nominees, Limited. The taxation of his profits is deducted at the source. He gets his income, less some small charge made by Bank Nominees, Limited. If he forgets to include in his Income Tax statement the fact that he has drawn such already taxed income, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will lose his Surtax. I put it no higher than this, that there is an opportunity here for those who are willing to take advantage of it, to escape their legitimate payments of Surtax to His Majesty's Treasury.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Is it not a fact that the bank has to disclose


to the Treasury who are the shareholders, if they are asked to do so? I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that legislation to that effect was included in a comparatively recent Finance Act.

Mr. Macquisten: That is so.

Mr. Johnston: I am not talking about the shareholders in Bank Nominees, Limited. I am talking about the people who use Bank Nominees, Limited, to get transactions though, with the possible effect of evading Surtax.

Sir A. Lambert Ward: But the Treasury can always find it out?

Mr. Johnston: They can if they go through the several hundreds of thousands of transactions carried on by some of these banking businesses.

Mr. Macquisten: They can do so quite easily. There is a system of cross-references and they can look up every dividend and see to whom it has been paid and find out exactly how the matter stands. Nothing escapes their net.

Mr. Johnston: We shall have a discussion later on this point. The Solicitor-General and those responsible for this matter are, at least, going to look into it, but the two hon. Members opposite who have interrupted may take it from me that it is not such a simple or easy matter as they pretend. Secondly, I ask the House to consider what opportunities for fraud there are in these concealments. Suppose that a Member of a Government—I do not say of this Government or of any particular Government—decided to use his prior knowledge to purchase stock through Bank Nominees, Limited. His name never appears in the list of shareholders. Suppose a member of a local authority decided to enter into a corrupt transaction, because of prior knowledge which he might have of some step which a local authority was about to take and suppose he operated through Bank Nominees, Limited. There is great danger to the public interest there. In my view, this system is not being used for the purpose for which it was originally intended. It is now being used to conceal transactions which any member of the public is entitled to have made known to him, in the light of day, if he desires to go through the formality of paying 1s. at Somerset House.
I have said that there is danger to the public interest. I have here a copy of the "World's Press News and Advertisers' Review" of 20th October. It deals with the shareholding in one of our London daily newspapers, the "Daily Mirror." It shows that Drummonds Bank Nominees hold 250,000 of the ordinary shares and the Westminster Bank Nominees 232,000. That is a total between them of nearly 500,000 shares, concealed ownership of the newspaper. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at a later return he will find another 143,000 bank nominee shares, in smaller units, of course, in this same newspaper. The right lion. Gentleman will doubtless recollect that in 1914 on the outbreak of the last War—and I am making no reflection whatever of this kind on the "Daily Mirror"—a London daily newspaper had to close its doors because the Austrian Embassy which had been surreptitiously financing it could no longer make payments. That was the "Standard." Statements have been made authoritatively, that in another capital, Paris, there are only two newspapers today in which you cannot buy the news columns. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that it is exceedingly dangerous that opportunities should be here for corrupt concealment of vital ownership in organs of public opinion.
The difficulty is that we find the same practice everywhere. There is also the case of coal. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) has obtained, through chartered accountants and through the Scottish Miners' Federation, a list of bank nominee holdings in our Scottish coal companies. I am not going to weary the House with a large number of them, but I may tell hon. Members that one firm alone the firm of Archibald Russell, Limited, has £994,000 worth of stock held by nominees of one bank, the National Bank of Scotland. Who are the owners and why should they try to hide themselves? In the Steel Company of Scotland, £486,000 worth of shares are held by Commercial Bank of Scotland nominees and in the United Collieries, paying a 10 per cent. dividend on a capital of £1,000,000, nearly three-quarters of the total stock is held by Bank Nominees, Limited. Shipping may be the same, and the dangers of diversion of traffic are obvious.
But if I may be pardoned for mentioning it on this occasion, it is in aircraft


manufacturing concerns, at this moment, that we on these Benches are most vitally interested. Taking six or eight of the largest manufacturing concerns making aircraft, of vital importance to this country, where secrecy is important and where certainly the control ought to be vested clearly in British subjects, I put it to the right hon. Gentleman as a curious fact that in one of them bank nominees from an Italian bank should be holding scrip, also nominees from a Belgian bank and from a Swiss bank. In the Rolls Royce Company there is £158,000 worth of bank nominee stock. In Short Brothers there is £163,000 worth of bank nominee stock. In the Bristol Aeroplane Company—and this will interest my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps)—there is £275,000 worth of bank nominee concealed stock. The Fairey Aviation Company, Limited, has 1,000,000 £1 shares issued, and over half of them are held by Bank Nominees, Limited, one block alone of 163,000 by Barclays Bank Nominees. In the Hawker Siddeley Company 2,170,000 shares are held by Bank Nominees, Limited. In Handley-Page there is one block held by the Royal Bank of Scotland of £180,000 worth of shares and out of a total of £373,000 ordinary shares in Handley-Page, £215,000 is held by Bank Nominees, Limited. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken this opportunity of doing something to prevent misuse of this Bank Nominee system. In Imperial Airways there are eight Bank Nominee groups operating, ranging from £36,000 worth of stock held by one concern in the Midland Bank, downwards.
I do not wish to take up much more of the time of the House, but there are two other possible steps which the right hon. Gentleman might have taken in this Measure. He might have made it easier for British people who wanted to do so to invest their money in small sums in Government stock not liable to fluctuation in amount, not liable to fluctuation owing to the ups and downs in the market. He could have called it national investment or anything you like, but he might have made it easier for British people to invest their money, knowing that it would be used for national purposes—for municipal, local and Imperial purposes. He

might have stopped the system under which local authorities are borrowing money through financial agents in London and paying commissions therefor, which I have been unable to discover in any account. He might have made it easier for the British people to know that their savings were being devoted to national ends and, not as is possible now, to anti-national ends, and certainly to concerns which are in direct competition abroad with the interests of persons investing here.
It is not enough that we should spend time plugging up leaks in the financial boat. As soon as one set of devices for exploitation has been discovered and stopped, ingenious minds discover a new set. A mere harrying of rogues into Pentonville or Dartmoor albeit at considerable expense to the nation, permanently solves no problem whatever. Ought we not day by day to be steadily limiting the field of robbery and chicane. Ought we not to do more to advertise and develop our national bank, that is, our Post Office Savings Bank? Ought we not to give the 10,000,000 depositors in that bank, if they so desire, cheque books and the right to draw cheques upon their accounts, such as the depositor with every private profit bank already enjoys? Ought we not to abolish the limit on deposits in any one year from any one depositor and stop the senseless system under which a man can only take out £3 at sight and give our national bank a chance? Encourage the social sense, by propaganda and otherwise, in finance. Teach the people to deposit their savings where they will be used, not only for State and municipal purposes, but for all sorts of purposes approved of by His Majesty's Government that will make for the common weal. Encourage the idea of thrift and saving at a low rate of interest as against gambling and speculation at a high rate, with high risks. A day may yet come when the Ruskinite idea that we should pay for the protection and safe-keeping of our thrift, rather than lend it out at usury, may be a possibility. Pending that day, let us develop our national resources with our national savings, and let us give a national guarantee of security to our investors and depositors that they do not have now, and limit the area in which the tricksters and the rogues may rob the simple and foolish folk of the country.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: I for one and, I have no doubt, many others in the House have a great deal of sympathy with some of the suggestions of a constructive character which were referred to by the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) in the concluding portion of his speech and dealt with matters not included in the Bill, although he thought that some of them might well have found a place in it. In regard to some of the matters to which he referred in connection with bank nominee companies, it is clearly of importance that we should be able to know who are the actual holders of securities in companies concerned with national work. As to a National Investment Board, there was a work published in 1928 called "Britain's Industrial Future" and known as the Liberal Yellow Book, a mass of useful information on such matters, which set forth the general scheme for the setting up of a National Investment Board. But I do not want to pursue these matters, and my few observations will be concerned with the actual proposals of the Bill itself.
We give a general and cordial welcome to the Bill. We think it is long overdue, and we regret that individual rogues and syndicates of swindlers should have had such a long run with other people's money, and that they should have been able to extract, as the right hon. Gentleman said, mainly from people of small means, sums which in the aggregate have amounted to a very formidable amount. This has been going on in this country, I suppose, ever since the South Sea Bubble and quite possibly before it. I remember on an earlier occasion, when we had this matter under discussion, suggesting that these rogues and swindlers of to-day had their counterpart in other times in the highwaymen and in the pirates who sailed the high seas, but the offences of these gentry are much worse than those of the highwayman or pirate. The highwayman could never be sure the people whom he waylaid on the stage coach did not carry a blunderbuss, and the pirate could never be sure that the ship which he was pursuing was not a Government ship in disguise. They took their risks and paid their penalties, but as for these sharks, they set out with cruel calculation, by fraud and deceit, to rob innocent people of their hard-earned savings or their small means.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, in introducing the Bill, it is a difficult matter to deal with by legislation, and for that reason I was glad to hear him say that he would welcome suggestions of help from any quarter of the House which might make the Bill more effective for its purposes. It is very difficult to protect people who are afflicted with two not uncommon human failings, ignorance and cupidity, and I am bound to say that in the main I think the Bill does grapple with the subject in a satisfactory manner. The Clauses in regard to licensing are probably adequate, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in suggesting that the Clause dealing with regulations, disqualifications, and the like should not be too rigid. There is really no limit to the ingenuity and the effrontery of some of these practitioners. I could not help smiling when I looked the other day at the report of the Bodkin Committee, refreshing my mind on some matters, and I found that a representative of Messrs. Wetnall, Jenkins, and Company, Limited, had been one of the witnesses before that body. It was of this concern that the report of the proceedings in the "Times" of, I think, 18th May this year said, at the time when the company first approached the public it was insolvent, and when, a month or two later, it issued an appeal for an iron and steel syndicate pool, its resources were very doubtful indeed and it had, for the purpose of phantom pools, collected a sum of £250,000, while the Public Prosecutor could find no evidence whatsoever that any pool had in fact existed.
It is clear that if we are to deal with firms of this kind, displaying this ingenuity and effrontery, we must have a sensible and elastic method of coping with the situation, and I think very great importance will depend on the nature of the rules and regulations which are in fact laid down by the Board of Trade. I associate myself with the suggestion of the right hon. Member for West Stirling that there should be some deposit expected and made with the Government, which would be some assurance for those who might transact business with firms who are granted exemption. That seems to me to be a matter of very considerable importance, and it will require a very vigilant administration.
I think also very great care should be exercised by the Board of Trade in granting permits to associations of persons who


may be formed for the purpose of obtaining exemption from licensing. I noticed in the Press that such an association had in fact been formed in the early part of this year, and indeed it was stated that it was meant to forestall this legislation. I do not know how that may be, but the weekly journal which was referred to a moment or two ago by the right hon. Member for West Stirling pointed out that some of the firms connected with that association have in fact been the subject of very severe criticism for some of their methods, and I may say that I myself frequently receive communications from at least one of the firms in that group. One that I received in the last week or two invited me to take up shares in a company which I did not know and have now forgotten, but on making inquiries I found out that if I had gone to the normal source, I could have obtained the shares at a very much lower price. I understand the object of this association is to do such things as will maintain a good standard of business in carrying on trade affairs. A good standard of business does not necessarily mean that they should charge higher prices for goods than those at which they may be obtained elsewhere, and I hope that very careful investigation will be made when it is proposed to grant exemption to an association of this kind. It has been pointed out to me in connection with the association that was formed that there were four businesses in one building in the City; two had the same directors and the same telephone number, and they are individual units in this new association. It may be perfectly right and proper, but it raises questions in the minds of those who observe it, and one wonders what the objects of the association are. In all these matters we want to make every effort to avoid fresh abuses coming in to take the place of those which we are trying to eradicate.
I turn for a moment to Clause 10, which was the subject of some observations by the right hon. Member for West Stirling. I can see that in this case the Government, or whoever may be responsible for these proposals, are in a difficulty. Parliament would not wish to pass legislation which would have the effect of penalising trustees or persons who might have to give advice in a professional capacity, advice which may be based on all the information available to

them and which, taking into account the circumstances of the time, is an honest and bona fide opinion, but which may in fact be proved wrong, and then they might find themselves subjected to prosecution and to a penalty of seven years' imprisonment, Parliament would not wish to penalise those whose duty it is to give bona fide opinions, but, on the other hand, when I compare the new Clause 10 with the old Clause 9, I find myself at all events in a certain amount of sympathy with the observations made by the right hon. Member for West Stirling. In the opening sentence one finds the words:
Any person who, by any statement, promise or forecast which he knows to be misleading …
I find that those words would be extraordinarily difficult to administer or to interpret in a court of law, and I think that, without having considered the matter very deeply, there is something to be said for omitting them. But with regard to the further provision, where it speaks of:
Any person who, by any statement, promise or forecast which he knows to be misleading, false or deceptive …
and then the words:
or by any dishonest concealment of material facts
are omitted, I can see no reason for the omission of those words, and I hope that further consideration will be given to this Clause in Committee, because I think that, while we must be anxious to protect the bona fide adviser, we must beware of making any Clause too wide so that further abuses may arise. In Clause 11 it seems to me that there is a matter which calls for further attention, and that deals with the question of circularising and the circulation of newspapers. Sub-section (3) says:
A person shall not be taken to contravene this section by reason only that he delivers, or causes to be delivered, to purchasers thereof copies of any newspaper, journal, magazine or other periodical publication.
There is a great number of these periodicals and I hope there will be a stringent definition of what may be circulated. A number of these things no doubt come to all members, like the "Weekly Financial Review," which is quite a substantial thing, "The Popular Investor," "The Monthly Review of Finance," and the "Industrial Market Review." They


may only, according to the Bill, be delivered to purchasers, but it seems to me that there is great scope for avoiding this provision. I see nothing to prevent people for a nominal consideration distributing these things on a large scale. They all contain in some part of them a public offer of a doubtful description. One of them which I have here contains a leading article called, "Touch and Go." There is in all of them a "recommendation of the week" a sort of plat du jour and the phraseology of the recommendations is nearly always in the same tone. In the offer which is made there are always "very few of the particular shares." "They are always hard to come by and are only generally obtained on the death of the fortunate holder of the shares." They go on to say that careful search had failed to reveal any more of the shares which could be obtained from any other quarter. I suppose that it is the kind of search that Lord Nelson made at the Battle of Copenhagen. I hope that careful consideration will be given to this question of circularising of newspapers, which seems to me to lay itself open to abuse in many ways.
I am glad that steps are to be taken to regularise the kind of company that has arisen under the Provident Societies Acts. I am sure that from some of the documents that we receive there is an intention, if not to mislead and deceive, at all events to do something very much in that direction. One finds on one of the more prominent of them a photograph of a middle-aged couple sitting in front of a fire with a look of unalloyed beatitude on their faces, apparently secured by knowledge that they have either borrowed money from or obtained an investment in this particular concern. These particular documents, which go out in hundreds and thousands every week, indicate that the "property interests" are valued at very large sums of money, leading any innocent person to suppose that they had unencumbered property. It is that kind of thing which leads one to suppose that there is great need for the step which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take. There are one or two other matters to which I wanted to refer, but perhaps they might be left over for consideration in Committee. In general, my hon.
Friends and I welcome this Bill, and we welcome the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that, realising it is a difficult subject with which to grapple, he will welcome suggestions at later stages.

5.50 p.m.

Sir George Broadbridge: In his speech in the Debate on the Address, the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said it contained a message for the City of London. He was referring to the present Bill, and I wish to say that the City of London welcomes not only this Bill, but any legislation which has for its object the suppression or the prevention of fraud of any kind. Where there are large communities such as in our great cities and towns, where there is always a large section of the public who will have their little gamble, there will nearly always be found a certain number of black sheep. I mean men to whom honesty in their lives or in their businesses is physically impossible. It so happens that in this country a vast number of businesses are carried on under joint stock law and this system has no doubt afforded opportunities to the fraudulent share dealer to push his wares.
It can easily be understood why a large number of these fraudulent firm should choose the City of London as their headquarters, since it is the focal point of this country and the world in finance trade and commerce. To a large extent the moving spirits in these fraudulent concerns have been undesirable people of foreign extraction, and if this Bill has the effect of exterminating them no on will be more pleased than the legitimate traders of London. No other city in the world can be so justly proud of its honesty and integrity in all its financial transactions as the City of London, and this is all the more to be emphasised when we bear in mind the vast amount of business that is carried on by verbal agreement and understanding. It is that integrity which has made the City of London the great city it is, and this Bill will help to keep it so and rid it of those undesirable and dishonest share-pushers who are a menace to this country.
I have but one or two observations to make on the Bill. I should like to draw attention to a possible loophole under the Clauses dealing with the licensing and exemption of dealers. A perfectly respectable person may apply for and be


granted a licence, and then, although the business may be carried on under his name the strings may be pulled, perhaps behind the scenes, by a fraudulent share-pusher who would not be in receipt of a representative's licence. Hon. Members may no doubt be aware that similar methods have been adopted in certain instances in the profession of solicitors, where a solicitor who has been struck off the roll has got hold of a tame solicitor, in whose name the business is carried on, but the real force behind it is the disqualified man. A reference to bank nominees was made by the right hon. Genth man the Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. Johnston). I would remind him that these bank nominees originated at the time when it was very prevalent for investments to be put into the hank's name, and for that purpose the names of two of the joint managers were always used. That threw interminable signing upon those managers, and hence it was decided to get over the difficulty by bank nominees. The right hon. Gentleman will also find that in a good many cases investments are put into the bank's name because the bank has financed the transaction. Another reason is that in many cases the investor is travelling and it is almost impossible to reach him to get the transfers signed in time.
Except in Sub-section (6) of Clause 11, I cannot see any provision for giving authority to a magistrate to grant a search warrant to the police where there exists a suspicion of dishonest share-pushing. I regard this as an important and urgent necessity, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will take that into consideration. Generally speaking, I assume that all applicants for either a licence or an exemption will be subjected to their credentials being fully inquired into before the grant is made. Lastly, I hope that the appointed day for this Bill coming into operation will be the earliest date possible, not later than 1st January next. If there are any other matters to which I think it desirable to call attention they can, with your permission, Sir, be left until the next stage of the Bill.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: There have been many distinguished representatives in this House from the City of London, and I am

sure that the speech to which we have just listened bids fair to indicate that another distinguished representative of the City has entered this House. The House has been charmed by the modesty of the hon. Gentleman's speech, and particularly by the constructive tone which he imparted to it. We shall look forward to further speeches from my hon. Friend, if I may call him so, in future. I think he was inclined to be a little too optimistic in expressing the opinion that this Bill would exterminate the type of persons against which it is directed. I hope he is correct, but we have been so often disappointed in these gentlemen. No sooner has the net closed on them in one direction than they have slipped out in another. A classical writer of the past said that laws were devised to catch small flies and to let the hornets break through. So often the effect of the legislation we pass is to catch the small fellow and to allow the big man to slip away to conquer fresh fields and pastures new. I am at one with my hon. Friend regarding one matter. Though I have been through the Bill carefully I am not sure whether sufficient care has been taken to make certain that the actual offender does not get away and a nominee only is punished. I would direct the attention of those in charge of the Bill to page 10 of the report of the Departmental Committee, where they say:
Frequently the person registered as the proprietor of the business is a mere nominee who is paid some weekly salary, takes no real part in the business, and probably knows little about it. The real proprietor may have an office elsewhere and seldom attend at the registered business address, but he is in frequent telephonic communication therewith and directs operations by telephone from his own premises.
I think it would be well to look into that point to see whether it is certain that under this Measure the real "crook," if I may use the expression which is in all our minds, will be captured, and not some inoffensive person. One always makes analogies, and in my experience as a voluntary magistrate in a Metropolitan police court we frequently have people brought before us for betting offences whose offence is very slight, while living in a big house not very far away is the real gentleman who is the "crook" and who ought to be in the court but never is. I hope we shall not have the same experience in regard to this question.
Generally speaking, I think that the sooner this Bill is on the Statute Book the better. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was intended to protect fools from their folly, and he pointed to the number of warnings issued in the Press and over the wireless. It is difficult to protect people who are so foolish as to "fall for" share-pushers, but there is something to be said for the fact that the share-pushers are extraordinarily clever. Let me give the House one short example. It happened some time ago, when the right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence was Attorney-General. These frauds had got so bad that he delivered a speech over the wireless to warn the public against them, and as a result 20 or 30 bucket shops or share-pushing organisations shut up immediately; but in one case which came into court soon afterwards this was reported—I am quoting from a newspaper:
The witness spoke about hearing a broadcast by Sir Thomas Inskip in which he issued a warning against share-pushers. She went up to London and saw the defendants, who explained that they themselves had asked Sir Thomas to broadcast the warning.
Really, I think one could be pardoned for being "gulled" by persons so clever as to think out an answer like that. Another point I wish to make is that I hope the Bill will not be used by the Government as an excuse for not proceeding with a general amendment of the Companies Acts. Many urgent matters are not dealt with in this Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) has mentioned one, and mentioned it in a way that ought to compel the serious attention of the Government. I refer to the scandal of bank nominees. There is also the question of misleading prospectuses, and the question of what are called "£100 companies." Those companies start with a capital of £100 as private companies, but in a short time launch out as public companies, and by that simple device are able to avoid giving the public a great deal of information which they would have had to give if they had come out as public companies in the first instance.
I think this Bill is good as far as it goes, and I particularly welcome the action which is to be taken to prevent any further increase of spurious co-operative

societies. I agree with my right hon. Friend that on the Committee stage something ought to be done to ensure that licences issued under the Bill will be subject to some substantial deposit. There is a very important matter, and it bears out the point I have been making that it is essential that nobody should be allowed to pose as a mere nominee. It a substantial deposit were demanded on the issue of a licence it would help to make that position secure. I welcome the Bill, and my only regret is that it does not go far enough.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Spens: May I congratulate my right hon. Friends upon two things, first, upon the tremendous push they have made against share-pushers in recent months and, secondly, upon our having at long last got this Bill before us. I should like to associate myself with those who would like to see the Bill become law with the least possible delay. If a problem such as share-pushing is to be tackled the net must be spread extremely wide, and we may get into it not only those whom we want to catch but also a great number of perfectly innocent ordinary business men and firms, but we are bound to cause those innocent business men a certain amount of inconvenience and trouble if we are ever going to create a net which will be of the slightest use to catch the rogues. I also feel very strongly that whatever we do we shall never catch all the rogues whom we wish to catch. But under this system of licences and exemptions the net has been spread very wide indeed, and for the ordinary, honest business firm which has been transacting its business for years without let or hindrance from the State, whatever may be its position as regards stock exchanges, this Bill does introduce certain inconveniences which no doubt some of them may to some extent resent. However, I believe the provisions to be necessary.
There is one point in connection with this system which appears to me to be a matter of principle and not a Committee point. It arises under Clause 4. Hereafter, everyone who wishes to deal in stocks and shares will have to get a licence or an exemption. That exemption is going to be granted by a Department of the Executive. That licence is going to be granted by a Department of the Executive. That exemption is going


to be taken away by a Department of the Executive. That licence, a man's right to earn his living, is to be taken away by a Department of the Executive. Human beings may err, the very best of them may—those in the Board of Trade consist of many of the very best, but still, they may err—and there must be an appeal to somebody, but in this Bill we have one more example of the growth of the system of executive control and executive action. Why cannot the appeal be to His Majesty's judges? Why must there be a special tribunal appointed by the executive? What are the terms upon which its three members will hold office, and for how long are they to hold office? The chairman is to be a member of the legal profession. Are they to make their decisions by a majority vote? If so, of what earthly use is it to have a legal chairman?
I am bound to say that I have not heard a sufficient defence of the setting-up of this new tribunal. By all means give the executive the right to lay down the rules and regulations for licences and exemptions, but when the executive desire to take away from the subject his right to earn his living because he has committed an offence against those rules or regulations surely the right tribunal to which that subject ought to be able to appeal is His Majesty's judges who alone, by the terms of their tenure of office, can stand up against improper executive action. I have commented upon similar attempts in other Departmental Bills to take questions between the executive and the subject out of the purview of the courts and refer them to arbitrators appointed by the Department, or something of that sort. Here we have a still greater extension of the system. We are setting up a new tribunal. It is true that the chairman is to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, but the two other members will be appointed by the Treasury. Nothing is said about the terms upon which they will be appointed or how they are to be dismissed. How can they have the same power of protecting the subject against the executive as have His Majesty's judges?
Why is it necessary to have this new tribunal? We have in both Divisions of the High Court, dealing with these very matters day after day, judges who, I venture

to think, have as much experience as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) about everything to do with share-pushing. Certainly in the Division in which I practise there is nothing that the judges who are dealing daily or weekly with companies and the winding-up of companies do not know about the tricks which have been played in the past by those who have tried to deceive the public. Being completely in favour of the Bill, and in favour of that part which is going to stop, and I believe effectually stop, the abuse of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act—a step which I think is just as important, if not more important, than the share-pushing—I yet want to enter my most emphatic protest against Clause 4. I say with great respect to my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that I shall have to hear a great deal more in support of the setting-up by the Executive of a special tribunal before I, for one, can support Clause 4.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Benson: Much as I dislike lawyers in the abstract, I felt the force of the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down. I am always ready to support any old-established constitutional principle and the division between the Executive and the judiciary, which has been handed down to us for many centuries, is a very valuable institution indeed. I shall be glad to hear what defence the Government put up for handing over what is really a judicial function to three members appointed by the Executive.
The most interesting part of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston) was undoubtedly when he referred to shares being held secretly by bank nominees. I thought there was adequate ground for suspicion, in what he said, that all was not right, and when I heard the defence put up for that practice by the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir G. Broadbridge), I was quite convinced. If the best defence that can be put up for the practice comes under the three heads, first of all, that you must not burden bank managers with too many signatures; secondly, that the banks may have financed transactions; and, thirdly, that the owners of the shares may be travelling, it is time that this method of shareholding were ended. There is not the


slightest objection to allowing the bank to hold shares for the security of the bank, but in neither this nor the other cases is it essential that there should be secrecy as to the actual owner as is the case at present. We know that the real reason why these shares are put into the hands of bank nominees is for secrecy as to the real owners. When we find that a big and important aeroplane company has more than half its share capital held in secret, it is time that the Government looked into the matter.
As regards the Bill, on broad general lines nobody would find much to criticise in it. There are omissions, but we have had a promise by the President of the Board of Trade that they will be made good in Committee. One point is with regard to unit trusts which, if approved, are to be treated as exempt concerns. The Bill deals primarily with the share-pusher who has no other object than swindling, but in dealing with him we must take care not to give unjustifiable status to other individuals or concerns. In certain cases the exemption of individuals or corporations may have that effect. It is particularly likely in the case of unit trusts, which are a method of investment which is still new and the forms of which are still in flux.
When it was first developed it was as the fixed trust, and the portfolio of investments was published; it was known, and it could not be altered. When any investor bought a unit, whether it was of £100 or £500, he knew exactly what he was getting for his money. He knew that he was buying a number of specified securities in a certain proportion. There was no possibility of the trust changing or altering his securities. It was found, however, that the fixity of these trusts carried certain disadvantages into which I need not go in detail, and there is now a movement away from the fixed trust to the flexible trust, which leaves out the word "fixed" and merely calls itself a unit trust investment. These trusts are mainly for the small investor. When he buys he may know exactly what he is buying, for a unit trust consists of a certain group of shares in a certain proportion; but there is no fixity. He may find after his purchase that the fortfolio of the trust has been completely altered and that his security is therefore completely altered.
Responsibility for the changing of the portfolio does not rest upon the trustee. I emphasise that. In many cases it is rather vague upon whom responsibility rests, but broadly speaking it rests upon the managers of the trusts and not upon the trustees. In the Bill, an authorised unit trust is to be a trust whose securities are held by a trustee approved by the Board. The Board of Trade will approve the trustee, but the Board does not approve the manager or the individuals who may be responsible for the variation of the portfolio of the trust and therefore of the security of the trust. I might almost say that the trustee has only a nominal function to perform, that merely of safely guarding the documents he receives and of distributing the interest. He is not responsible in any decision of policy or in any question of the form taken by an investment. Trustees are usually banks or large insurance companies. When money is invested in these unit trusts, you generally find emphasis on the fact that the trustees are so-and-so bank or so-and-so insurance company. The effect upon the mind of the ordinary small investor is: "Here I am perfectly safe because I am putting my money into a concern the trustee of which is one of the big five banks, or is a world-famous insurance company. My money is guaranteed, backed by this trustee." As a matter of fact, it is nothing of the kind.
Many investors really believe that the trustee bank or insurance company gives them some security and a. guarantee that their investments will be made wisely and well. On this theory the unit trust is able to trade. If the Bill becomes law in its present form the unit trust will be able to advertise, not merely that so-and-so bank or insurance company is its trustee but that the trust itself is authorised by the Board of Trade, and a status may be given to the trust entirely out of proportion to the reality. The only security or guarantee which is given in this part of the Bill is that the trustee is an approved person and not a rogue. When asked whether there was any investigation of managers of trusts the President of the Board of Trade replied that it was anticipated that trustees would themselves see to it that the managers were respectable and that the trust was satisfactorily run. The average trustee has no power to do that, because his function does not go


beyond what I have described. We shall require a far greater investigation into unit trusts before we can give the imprimatur "authorised by the Board of Trade," in these circumstances.
As a matter of fact, banks who are trustees in this respect are becoming perturbed about the widespread idea that when banks become trustees they guarantee the investor against something or other. There is no question of fraud in this matter but merely of the impression that is gained from the advertisement. The Westminster Bank has invariably refused to become trustee for unit trusts. I understand that a number of other banks are beginning to worry because they find the impression abroad that there is some form of guarantee by the bank. In view of that mistaken impression, the Government should take very great care not to give it added force.
There is a certain amount of publicity—I will not call it share pushing because that is rather unpleasant—invariably attached to the flotation of one of these unit trusts. I find that one very large trust—I will not mention its name although it is a very large and perfectly respectable fixed trust—has decided to float another trust. In the "Times" of 17th November, this statement appeared:
''Wide management powers, exercisable how ever only with the express approval of the trustee, will be specified for the rigid working of the present trust.
Three days later we found this entirely denied, and that instead of the trustees exercising this control, as the Government appear to think that they will do, the power that the trustees are to have under this new flexible trust is power to veto certain investments. It is made clear that if the trustee fails to exercise his veto he takes no responsibility. He may exercise his veto if he wishes. Unit trusts are in a fundamentally different category from the gentlemen whom we are really after in this case, and they seem likely to grow into a large and important factor, particularly for the small investor in sound investments, but I do not want them to gain a status by means of this Bill that the facts do not warrant.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: I am grateful for the opportunity of speaking in support of this Bill. I do not think I should follow the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) in his observations with regard

to unit trusts, because all my own training has been on the other side of the business—the managed investment trust company business. But I do agree with him that the exact functions of the trustee require very careful definition. It is very important to fix clearly the responsibility for investment policy in the case of a flexible trust—that is, one in which the investments can be changed.
Having spent 30 years in the investment business, both here and in America, and having had some experience of the operation of what are called the "Blue Sky Laws" in the latter country, I feel that I can say with confidence that no security dealer who conducts his business with energy and good faith has anything to fear from this Bill. The essence of the investment business is confidence between the merchant of securities and his clientèle, the investing public. The reputation of the great issuing houses, their ability to do business, and particularly their continuity in business—the fact that some of them have remained in business for 100 years and more—rests entirely upon public faith in their integrity; and it is just here that the conception underlying the "Blue Sky Laws" in America is at fault. I think it is fair to say that the conception underlying those laws is that every security dealer is not merely a potential rogue, but an actual rogue. This reached its culmination in the Federal Act which created the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has been described as an attempt to evolve a formula for conducting confidential business with someone who can on no account be trusted. This Bill proceeds on an entirely different assumption. In its general provisions for exemption I think it is right to say it assumes that the ordinary and well-established machinery of the securities business rests on a basis of integrity and experience. It sets out to catch the rogue, to prevent him from entering the business and to catch him if he does. Therefore, I fully support the spirit of the Bill, and such suggestions as I may offer will be designed merely to assist it, if possible, to attain that object.
First there is the question of the power of the Board of Trade to refuse licences. I feel sure that not only the public, but the business community too, will be anxious that my right hon. Friend shall assume for the Board of Trade the fullest


powers in that respect. There is a qualifying phrase in paragraph (2, b) of Clause 3 which appears to limit the power to refuse licences to people who have been convicted in this country. I refer particularly to the phrase—
any such person as is mentioned in subparagraph (a).
I may have interpreted these words wrongly, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will assure himself that he has the full power which I feel sure public opinion will be willing to grant him in this respect, because we want not merely to catch people who have been convicted of crime; we want, if possible, to forestall the adventurers, the carpet-bag dealers who come from abroad—from the United States, from the Continent, and possibly also from Canada and Australia.
There need be little fear that these powers which the Board of Trade assume will be abused provided that the appeal tribunal is properly constituted. And here I would like to associate myself most heartily with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), and also, as I understood him, with the hon. Member for Chesterfield, in desiring to see the appeal in this matter lie to the courts. This House is always on the lookout for examples where the Executive constitutes itself judge and jury in its own case, and I feel that we should not let pass this opportunity of bringing to the attention of my right hon. Friend how strongly it is felt that this tribunal should be independent of the Executive. Further, I would like to suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should consider making provision for the powers of appeal to that tribunal to apply, not merely to refusal of licences, but also to refusal to grant exemptions.
When one looks at the provisions in Clause 13 with regard to applying for exemption, one is struck by the huge volume of individual applications for exemptions that will have to be made. My right hon. Friend, in his speech introducing the Bill, mentioned that it would be possible for him to exempt large classes of people who were members of associations which he might propose to recognise as associations of dealers for the purposes of the Act; but I am wondering whether he will not consider going further, and specifically giving statutory exemption to a large number of such

associations, in order to minimise the number of the applications that will have to be made. The Bill, properly, concentrates, in Clause 11, on the use of circulars and prospectuses as a means of inducing the public to invest in particular securities. It may be necessary to ask for a closer definition of what constitutes a circular. When does a given piece of paper manifolded two or three times, or half-a-dozen times, or a dozen times, and sent out in the ordinary course of business, say by a solicitor to his clients, become a circular? I think it is most important that that should be clearly defined.
I am particularly glad to be able to support the Bill, which, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) pointed out, is non-controversial in its nature, and one of which he himself would not wish to make any party capital. I noticed, however, that towards the end of the right hon. Gentleman's speech some old friends turned up—the super-investment hoard and the super-national bank. Perhaps this is not the moment at which to discuss these, except possibly to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, if at any time in the future the opportunity for bringing those schemes into operation should fall to him, I hope he will not fail to remember that a number of us on this side of the House, who have spent all our lives in the investment or banking business, will be looking for jobs; and at least we shall be able to say as a qualification that we have made no reckless statements or promises as to our ability to manage such large concerns.
Finally, I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the improvement which he has made in Clause 10 of the Bill. In its original form, if I remember rightly, that Clause established penalties for the making of any statement which the maker of it might have had reasonable grounds for knowing to be false or misleading. I think that that would be an extremely difficult thing to establish in practice, and I can well imagine that, long after an enterprise which had been floated had turned out to have falsified its original hopes—perhaps two or three years after the event—there would not have been wanting individuals who would be ready to come forward, some of whom might have found their way on to juries, perfectly prepared to pronounce judgment in


the terms that "any fool should have known that." The present form of the Clause is, I think, very much better, because it establishes penalties for the reckless making of any statement, forecast or promise which is misleading. We have to remember that optimism is a very necessary quality if businesses are to be expanded or new businesses are to be developed. We do not want to kill optimism, and it is entirely impossible to lay down what are the bounds of legitimate optimism. No reputable dealer or issuing house ever makes forecasts or promises without having exercised the greatest care to establish a reasonable basis for those forecasts. If it is a matter of engineering, they get the best engineers they can to report on the proposition; if it is a matter of accounting, they rely upon the advice of expert accountants; and no responsible dealer in securities or issuing house need fear these words as they now stand:
the reckless making of any statement, promise or forecast.
As several speakers have observed, it is quite impossible to protect the gull from the shark. I think the House may possibly remember some remarks of Lord Baldwin in this House some years ago, when a suggestion came up that a charter should be granted to the Stock Exchange in order to protect the innocent investor. He replied "that no charter that the wit of man could devise could prevent a fool and his money from being soon parted." In that sense we must be careful that, in any legislation we frame, we do nothing which would curb the optimistic efforts of business men to expand their businesses and to obtain the necessary capital for that purpose. When by experience we find that this or that man is a dangerous optimist, we have our own way in business of dealing with him—we refuse him further credit; and, if I may offer to my right hon. Friend a homely phrase, I would say that I hope that neither this Government nor any future Government will interfere with the City in its method of "burying its own dead." I shall have great pleasure in voting for the Second Reading of the Bill, and, while I feel that it may need careful consideration in Committee, I wish it a speedy passage through all its stages.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I can assure the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Hely-Hutchinson)

that we on this side are not so much concerned with the City's dead as with the large number of dead people outside the City who came to the end of their financial life because of certain acts of City people. But, of course, "The City" is a very wide term, and perhaps the hon. Member meant to use it in its widest possible sense. With regard to a remark that he made about a national investments board, and the claim which I understood he wanted to stake out for that time when a Labour Government comes into office and introduces this national investments board, I can assure him that we shall need gentlemen like himself in order to work it properly, and that, so far as any influence goes that I may have in that Labour Government—I am sure it will be very small—I will see that his claims are not overlooked.
The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Bill, was very lucid, and we are grateful to him for the assistance he gave the House in trying to understand what in certain parts is a somewhat complicated Bill; but when he referred to the unanimity of those authorities in the City whom he had approached, I thought that that was one further reason why we should examine more closely than ever the various clauses of the Bill, because I do not think the issue is quite so simple as the right hon. Gentleman attempted to make it. This is not a case of the child and its pocket-money; it is the case of large numbers of investors, often small investors, but including others of larger means, being wilfully defrauded of large sums of money, even if not in the particular, in the aggregate.
The whole problem of preventing fraud, in investments or in anything else, is a much wider subject than that covered by the Measure now before the House. It is a difficult task for hon. Members on this side to attempt to patch up the present economic system, which, we believe, in many respects is somewhat defective; and it is a question whether we have to pull down the bridge and build a new one, as in the case of Waterloo Bridge, or keep the existing bridge merely because it has some aesthetic value. I visualise an economic system which is to take, not the four lines of traffic which it had to carry in the past century, but the much bigger volume of traffic which exists in this twentieth century, and which is


likely to increase the more we expand, as industry—and consequently finance—is likely to do in the future. But I would like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his vigour and virility in bringing forward this Measure. Although I cannot say that it is going to deal with this vast problem, and with cognate problems such as unit trusts and company law amendment, which are vital, nevertheless, I realise that the Measure is going to clip the wings of those birds of passage who have for so long battened on the present financial system. These gentry have caused untold misery among numberless small investors.
It may be within the recollection of hon. Members that last December I had the privilege of moving a Motion on company law. After moving that Motion, I received quite a number of letters from different people, some of them belonging to this particular class of investors to which I have referred. I will quote two extracts, which will indicate, better than I can in my own words, the type of investor who is caught by these financial crooks. One gentleman told me that he would be obliged if I would advise him concerning
growing mushrooms as a whole-time occupation, on which I would be relying for my only income.
I did not feel that I could take the responsibility, and I referred him to the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member should have referred him to the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Bellenger: In my simplicity, I thought the right hon. Gentleman would be a more suitable person to advise him. Another letter was from a gentleman who said he had noticed that I had put a question regarding mushroom and soya bean farms. He went on:
As I have since found out, I am one of the victims in the above company. I had invested £100, which was a considerable part of my savings, and I was wondering if you could inform me whether there is any likelihood of recovering any of my money.
Again I referred him to remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman in this House as to the unsuitability of soya beans as an investment. The question arises as to whether this Bill touches more than a fringe of that problem. Take the question of speculation in commodities.

It is within the recollection of hon. Members that not long ago we had what was known as the pepper pool scandal. The trouble was not so much that investors were defrauded of their money in that swindle as that tremendous public interests were endangered by the depredations of the gentlemen engaged in that operation. That is what I mean when I say that the wider problem must be tackled by the right hon. Gentleman or by somebody who follows him.
There is another question which is as important to consumers if not to investors. That is the question of the price rings, which are just as bad in controlling prices of commodities as these share-pushers may be in controlling the savings of small people. The question of unit trusts, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) has referred, has formed the subject of an inquiry the conclusions of which were reported to this House over two years ago. I ask whoever is going to reply to say whether we are to understand that that question, which was dealt with by that special committee, is to be the subject of another Bill or whether it is being dealt with, so far as this Government are concerned, in the present Bill. The Bill, as I see it, deals only with the registration of dealers in securities and their conduct of their business, and makes provision for some control of those institutions which now come under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act. We have to bear in mind that these institutions are responsible for exceedingly large amounts of public investments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said, the opportunities for fraud are very vast—he gave only one or two illustrations—and there is not the control over the unit investment trusts that there ought to be. I know, and the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, that a tremendous amount of money going into these trusts to-day comes from the small investors of moderate means, who think they are putting their money into gilt-edged securities. Too often they are not.
The Association of Unit Investment Trusts represents something over £300,000,000 of public money, and the fixed trusts have collected £70,000,000 of small savings. That is in the hands largely of the managers of these trusts, and with it, if they feel inclined, they are able to do great damage to the financial


markets. Hitherto they have not used these powers: there has not been the tremendous fall in securities which many people imagined would happen in times of slump; but I think that if we do get a slump of the nature of that which occurred in 1931 these trusts, because of the large amounts of institutional money with which they are dealing, might be a danger to the financial system of this country. For that reason alone, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to deal with these trusts, if he proposes to deal with them at all, at no distant date.
If I may, I will turn to the property societies, because I believe they are doing perhaps even more damage to the small investor than the investment trusts, and certainly more than the soya bean and mushroom concerns. They are taking money under what is nothing less than false pretences. Their methods have been investigated by newspapers which have taken their advertisements; and certain newspapers will not now accept the advertisements of these societies. People are being encouraged to think they are investing in bricks and mortar: one of the forms of investment which is very popular with the small tradesman and other people of that class, who are saving for the rainy day—the inevitable rainy day under the present system. In many cases, these societies do not even own the bricks and mortar, but have only a second charge or an option on the bricks and mortar. These societies have too long existed under an Act which was never intended for that purpose, and I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with this at long last.
I would like to ask one question concerning Clause 8, Sub-section (2). Under this, the provision for cancellation of the registry of these property societies under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act shall not apply to those societies which have not made public application or invited the public to subscribe moneys to those societies within the period from 26th July, 1938, to the date of the passing of this Act. Does that mean that the existing societies which are registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act and which have not invited the public to subscribe between those two dates, will not have their registration cancelled if they do not apply to come within the Companies Act?

Mr. Stanley: I think the hon. Gentleman ought to read on. The Clause says:
neither in the period beginning with that day and ending with the passing of this Act nor since the passing of this Act …
In other words, the registration is not cancelled unless they do make this application or invite the public to subscribe, not only within the time set out in the Act but at any time after the passing of the Act.

Mr. Bellenger: Do I understand that the property societies at present registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act need not apply to be registered under the Companies Act and will not have their registration under the Industrial Act cancelled if they have not invited public subscriptions within those dates?

Mr. Stanley: Yes.

Mr. Bellenger: That is an injustice to the public, because many of these societies now existing are insolvent. If their accounts were submitted to independent audit they would have to go into liquidation straight away; and to allow those societies to remain in existence without being forced to come under the Companies Act, whereby they would have to disclose much more voluminous information to their shareholders, is not fair. It is a matter that I think will have to be dealt with in Committee.
Other hon. Members have referred to nominee holdings. I do not think any of the hon. Members who have spoken before have indicated some of the fraud, or unjust dealing, which might result from directors of various companies speculating in their own companies' shares. For that reason alone, shareholders in any company should know what their directors are doing, which they cannot know at present under this nominee system. The hon. Member for the City of London (Sir G. Broadbridge) gave a reason for this procedure. He stated that shares are held by Bank Nominees, Limited, because—amongst other reasons—the banks have helped to finance some of these deals. But when banks help to finance deals in property, they do not usually hold the property in their own names. The owner of the property holds the property, and is registered with his holding at the Land Registry, but he gives to the bank or whoever has financed him a mortgage.


Is it not possible to have some sort of system like that in relation to stocks and shares?
There is one other matter which I think ought to be dealt with, either in this Bill or at some future date, and that is the powers of auditors. Auditors at the present time are not independent authorities. They are mostly under the patronage and good will of the directors of companies, who for the most part appoint them, and they are not the true guardians of the shareholders. I certainly think that the right hon. Gentleman might give some consideration to that subject.
I have said enough, I think, to show that this Bill only skirts the perimeter of the subject of investments and that it will not satisfy my hon. Friends that it will prevent fraud on a large scale. Hatrys come and Hatrys go, but they still seem to go on for ever under a different name. At any rate they are only the ones who are found out. I believe that prevention is better than cure, and we need a far more comprehensive Bill than this if we are going to have prevention. Hon. Members opposite look askance at our proposal for a national Investments Board, but I think that sooner or later they will have to come to it. They cannot continue indefinitely the laisser faire system of the past century in dealing with modern requirements in industry and finance, and to-day gambling in stocks and shares has become almost a greater industry than productive manufacture itself. Why therefore is finance allowed this free scope, which is not permitted even by the Government to many forms of industry to-day which are controlled presumably in the public interest? This Bill is named a Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Bill. I submit that what is required is a Bill entitled Prevention of Fraud (Finance).

7.2 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I should like to say that I, also, welcome this Bill. I do not like this type of legislation, but I do regard this Bill as an unpleasant necessity. Generally speaking, the less we attempt by Government action to regulate the carrying on of business the better, but in this case the mischief aimed at has been responsible for so many tragedies that I think this Bill is necessary. The share-pushers have shown heartlessness and

great ingenuity. Often their methods have been surprisingly simple. Some years ago there was a very famous crook who emerged from a term of penal servitude and proceeded to carry on his old business, that of share-pushing, with great success, and the success of his confidence trick lay in this, that he carried on business under the very name under which he had previously been convicted. His victims naturally thought that any man who carried on business in a name that was so publicly execrated must be a very unimaginative and simple-minded person, and certainly could not be the famous ex-convict in person.
I think that while this Bill is all to the good in principle, care must be taken that it does not in some directions do a certain amount of harm. In one direction especially I think there is a certain danger. If the Government say that a certain class of business is outside the pale and a certain class within it, if they say that one kind of business is authorised and another is illegitimate, then there is a danger that the public will come to regard the authorised business as having a certain official blessing, and there will be a false sense of security. For example, every hon. Member knows, and the well-informed public know, that the Stock Exchange does not give any guarantee of the solvency of any of its members. But after a Bill of this description has received great public attention, I do think the less informed members of the public may imagine that those associations which are recognised by the Government will give some form of guarantee to their members. It has often happened that in the bankruptcy of a member of the Stock Exchange a creditor has learnt for the first time that membership of the Stock Exchange did not in any way insure solvency. Therefore, I hope that it will be made perfectly clear that the Government in authorising certain firms and certain associations to conduct business will not be giving any form of assurance and will not be increasing their security.
A great deal will turn upon the form of the rules which the Board of Trade will in due course make under Clause 19, and I very much hope that the initial rules, those which will operate from the Appointed Day, will be laid before Parliament as early as possible, in order that


this House may have an opportunity of considering them very carefully. It is important that those businesses which apply for exemption under Clause 13 should not be involved in any avoidable difficulties. I think it will be a great pity if they have to make any unnecessary returns in order to obtain exemption. The hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) urged that the appeal against a refusal of the Board of Trade to grant licences should be an appeal to a court of law and not to a tribunal set up by the Government. Even if it is not possible to go so far as that, at least there should be something clone with regard to claims for exemption under Clause 13. At present, while in the case of applications for licences there is an appeal to the tribunal set up under the Bill, in the case of a claim for exemption there is no form of appeal whatsoever, and in that case the decision of the Board of Trade is absolute and final.
This Bill is a very complex one in detail and, while I think it is rather a pity that the Second Reading discussion had to be compressed into the space of half a day, I hope very much that there will be ample opportunity at subsequent stages of the Bill for discussing the various details, because, if they are not very carefully analysed and discussed I do think there is danger that considerable inconvenience may arise, and ultimately amending legislation will be required.

7.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross): I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the gratification of my right hon. Friend at the very wide welcome which has been given to this Measure and at the expressions of good will and the objective criticism which have come from every quarter of the House—not only from the right hon. Gentleman opposite who has spoken but from the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) and the Member for the City of London (Sir G. Broadbridge) who, in a maiden speech upon which, I think, we should all like to congratulate him, spoke up for the high reputation for integrity which the City has built up for itself. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. Johnston) offered a certain amount of criticism. He will forgive me for saying that it was largely directed to things

which he would have liked to see in the Bill, but which certainly are not designed to prevent share-pushing. He had some criticism to make of Clause 10. First of all, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that in the old edition of Clause 10 words were included concerning dishonest concealment of material facts, and he wanted to know why those words had been left out. I understand that the reason is that those words are already covered by the words in the Clause relating to a statement which is misleading or deceptive, and indeed that this is already an offence at law, and therefore these words were adding nothing to the Bill. It was for that reason that they were taken out.

Mr. Johnston: That has nothing to do with concealment. You may make a statement which is misleading, false or deceptive—that is a positive statement, but it is not the same as concealing something.

Mr. Cross: The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to answer as if I were a learned Gentleman. I am representing the advice I have got from my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, and if the right hon. Gentleman wants to take this matter up further I think the Committee stage would be the appropriate time, when the Solicitor-General would himself reply. A further point on Clause 10 raised by the right hon. Gentleman concerned the making of a statement which the maker of that statement could reasonably be expected to know was misleading. That was in the old version, and was taken out. The right hon. Gentleman objected to that. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead said he could well understand it, and the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Hely-Hutchinson), with his experience of running investment trusts, congratulated the Government on having taken this out. The reason why it was taken out was that it was altogether too burdensome, that it offered opportunities for what you might really call blackmail, the blackmail, that is to say, of a person who had offended under these words but without any guilty intent. You might, no doubt, in the end get a verdict in his favour, but in the meantime his reputation would have been seriously damaged, or he might be convicted in the absence of intent because the jury might well say that he should have known that certain information which he gave was misleading.
The right hon. Gentleman also regretted that there was no provision for a deposit of £500, or be it what it may, in this Bill. The reason why there is no such provision is the fear that we should not merely hurt the small man, the man who is running a stockbroking business as a small side line, but it would actually make it impossible for him to carry on his business; while at the same time I understand that these share-pushers have generally got very adequate capital resources behind them, which would mean that a £500 deposit was no real obstacle to them. The right hon. Gentleman also complained of the misuse of the nominee system which, as he rightly pointed out, is a matter for amendment in the Companies Acts. I cannot say when there will be any amending of the Companies Acts, but that is a matter which would of course involve the setting up of a committee to make an inquiry. In any case, it is not share-pushing. The right hon. Gentleman's illustrations exemplified that. There was his illustration, for instance, of the evasion of Surtax, and the possibility that a Member of Parliament might use his prior knowledge of events and buy shares on the strength of that information. He gave a number of other instances concerning newspaper ownership and the ownership of aircraft shares, and so on, which, however much we may agree with the right hon. Gentleman, have not a place in this Bill.
The hon. Member for East Birkenhead raised the question that he rather feared that some of the exemptions which might be granted would be granted to firms which were operating in rather a questionable sort of way. On this I can only say that each case will receive the most careful investigation to the very best of our power, and we hope to be able to avoid exempting in such cases. He also made an interesting point, though a small one, on Clause 11 (3) concerning the possibility that it might occur that the rules as to circularisation would be overcome by the delivery of a newspaper in such a way that it might be said to be purchased. That is a matter into which we will look further. It is a sub-section which might, perhaps, provide some small loophole.
The hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison), as also the hon. Member for the City of London, raised the question of the person who has

hitherto led a blameless life and manages to get a licence, and is in fact the tool of some share-pusher. We cannot say that someone, of the kind who can find the right kind of referees and so on, will not get a licence. All I can say is that the moment one discovers that the situation is as described by the hon. Member for North Tottenham such a person will lose his licence very quickly; and the powers under the Bill are sufficient to secure that.

Mr. Bellenger: Will it be revoked immediately, or must you wait a year?

Mr. Cross: It can be revoked under Clause 3 (2 b) immediately, but there is, of course, an appeal to the tribunal. The speech of the hon. Member for the City of London reminded me that representations have been made to my right hon. Friend concerning paragraph 29 in the Bodkin Report, from which it might be inferred that the advice of the City Solicitor had not at all times been available to the City Police. My right hon. Friend has instructed me to say that he interpreted the report to mean that the Commissioner of the City Police had no advice available to him from a lawyer versed in criminal law attached to the Commissioner's staff.
There was a very important point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), who deplored the growth of executive control and wanted to see an appeal to His Majesty's judges in place of the appeal tribunal, which there is under Clause 4. My right hon. Friend is, in any event, extremely reluctant to burden himself with any additional executive control, and he does so only because he believes it to be absolutely necessary, or at least most desirable for the suppression of these share-pushers. The appeal tribunal can act with far greater speed than would be possible if a case had to appear in front of a judge. In these matters speed is often absolutely essential. If there is not enough speed the share-pusher is able to carry on with his business pending the hearing of the case, and this is only too likely to afford him time to get away with the loot of his victims, and it is then very much too late to do anything about it.
It is for these reasons, as well as others, that the provision for an appeal tribunal has been inserted. That, again, is a


Committee point and if, when we reach the Committee Stage, the Committee feels so strongly on the matter that they are prepared to risk that additional delay, an alteration can be made at that time, though I think that my right hon. Friend would be most unwilling to see such an alteration effected. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) made some very interesting points on the status of the management of unit trust as distinct from the status of the approved trustee, but he himself agreed and said that it was not a share-pushing point to be included in the Bill.

Mr. Benson: We have got something about it in the Bill. I was pointing out that the Bill itself would tend to give an added status to unit trusts. It is the Bill itself that I was criticising.

Mr. Cross: I do not quite understand why the hon. Gentleman should object to the Bill giving any added status to a unit trust provided the management of the unit trust is all that can be desired as well as the trustee. It will be a part of the duties of the trustees to furnish particulars of the unit trusts to the Board of Trade, and, consequently, there will be a further check upon the activities of the management. In the unlikely event of a trustee riot being worthy of his position and of some shady transaction going on, the Board of Trade would have the necessary power to enable them to take action.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) also raised a question concerned with unit trusts and wanted to know whether there would be another Bill to deal with them. I think he will agree with me that the matter is not nearly so urgent as the one with which we are dealing, and also that a very great deal has already been done independently through the unit trusts themselves. We have, furthermore, an insurance Bill, which is of very much greater importance, with which we must deal in the near future, and I am sorry that I cannot, therefore, give him any promise as to when legislation dealing with unit trusts will be introduced.

Mr. Bellenger: May we take it that the Government do propose to deal with the unit trust business at some time, because they have already given a promise to that effect and have also said that until they do deal with it, they cannot consider the Amendment of the company law?

Mr. Cross: I think that the answer to that question must depend very much as to how far unit trusts succeed in putting their own house in order The Government do not want to interfere in any way, and as the unit trusts have already made an advance in that direction, and since we cannot anticipate legislation in the near future, I should hesitate, and indeed be unwilling, to give a promise since in the intervening period things may have changed a good deal.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling and Clackmannan spoke of his desire to see a national investment board and of many matters which were cognate to that. I do not think that he will wish me to reply to many of the points which he raised as to the things he hoped to see under a national investment board, but he will agree with me that, as a remedy for share-pushing, it would be a splendid instance of taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut. The volume of money passing year by year as a result of fraud, which he put at £5,000,000, is very small compared with the amount of loss which might be suffered in quite a normal sort of way owing to fluctuations on the Stock Exchange or in a fall in commodities. The amount of money which is actually lost by fraud and passes into dishonest hands is absolutely trifling compared with the amount which passes in honest transactions. Why should one, to put it metaphorically, put the 99 just men into leading strings simply in order to circumscribe the activities of the one unjust man? Surely the better approach to the subject is that of his Bill, where we attempt to circumscribe the activities of the share-pusher while leaving all other persons to enjoy the maximum liberty for their legitimate activities. The main ground which has been taken up by hon. Members in every quarter of the House is the same. It is a unanimity in their desire to forge an effective Measure for the suppression of
share-pushing, and I trust that, since we have that complete unanimity of purpose, the House will now give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — PREVENTION OF FRAUD (INVESTMENTS) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide (among other things) for regulating the business of dealing in securities, it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses incurred for the purposes of the said Act by the Board of Trade (including the payment of such remuneration to the members of any tribunal constituted under the said Act to discharge functions in connection with the granting and revocation of licences, and such expenses of the said tribunal, as may be approved by the Treasury), and
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of all fees received by the Board of Trade by virtue of the said Act."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Cross.]

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: There is one point that I would like to raise before we part with this Resolution. The Committee in what they describe as their principal recommendations, on page 67 of their report, at the end, say:
The Board of Trade should appoint a Registrar whose duty should be to keep a register of the names and addresses of registered dealers in stocks and shares and the expenses of the Registrar should be met by fees payable on registration and annual renewals thereof, such fees to he fixed by the Board of Trade from time to time.
It is true that the Government have not followed exactly the machinery suggested by the Committee, and I should like to know how far, if at all, that has upset the proposal of the Committee that the fees should cover the expenses. Before we part with the Resolution, we are entitled to be told to what extent the Board of Trade estimate the fees they will receive will cover the expense that they will incur? If the Board of Trade have not yet decided to fix fees at a level which, in their judgment, will be sufficient to cover the expenses, I hope they will reconsider their decision, because there is no doubt that one effect of this Bill will be to give improved status to those outside brokers who will be registered under the Bill. It will certainly help them and will bring them more business if they are able to say: "We are registered and approved by the Board of Trade." In these circumstances it is not

unreasonable that they should be required to pay the very moderate expenses which will be incurred by the Board in this matter.

Mr. Stanley: I think my hon. Friend will realise that it would be very difficult at this stage to give any particulars as to receipts or expenditure. It certainly would be our desire, if it were possible so to arrange, to see that the fees covered the expenditure. I am not, however, in a position to say how the system laid down in the Bill will react in regard to making the scheme self-supporting. As regards exemption, that is given once for all, and not yearly, and it is difficult to see how any revenue can be got from it, but, in so far as it is possible, we should aim at making the fees sufficient to meet the outgoing.

Mr. Duncan: Will there be fees for an exemption order?

Mr. Stanley: I should like to consider that.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — RACIAL, RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL MINORITIES.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I beg to move,
That this House notes with profound concern the deplorable treatment suffered by certain racial, religious and political minorities in Europe, and, in view of the growing gravity of the refugee problem would welcome an immediate concerted effort amongst the nations, including the United States of America, to secure a common policy.
I hope that this is a Motion with which the House will agree. I shall try to support it in no party spirit, and I hope I shall say nothing that will add, or will be said to add, to the difficulties with which the Government are to-day confronted. But I know the House will recognise that this Debate can serve no useful purpose unless we speak the truth, unless we face the facts and review the situation as it really is. What are the facts? On 7th November, a Polish Jew, Grynspan, a boy 17 years of age, entered the German Embassy in Paris and attacked a member of the staff, Herr Vom Rath. Two days later Herr Vom Rath succumbed to the wounds he had received.


He was the victim of political assassination. We have been told, here and elsewhere, that his action was a detestable crime. No one would dispute that. By our national standards political assassination is always detestable and always wrong. It is not less detestable when it is the method by which a party climbs or clings to power. There are people who, when they hear the name of Vom Rath, will remember also the names of Rathenau, Erzberger and Dollfuss, to whom the act of Grynspan will recall the night of 3oth June, 1934.
What followed Grynspan's act in Germany? Every hon. Member knows the main outline of the facts. Dr. Goebbels has described it as the justifiable and comprehensible indignation of the German people. Let hon. Members think of that. Here is the "Daily Telegraph's" first summary of what occurred:
The entire Jewish population of Germany was subjected yesterday to a reign of terror. The pogroms started simultaneously all over Germany. No attempt was made by the police to restrain the savagery of the mob. Almost every synagogue in the country was burnt to the ground. Scarcely a Jewish shop escaped being wrecked. Looting occurred on a great scale. Parts of the fashionable district of Berlin were reduced to a shambles. Jews of all ages, of both sexes, were beaten in the streets and in their homes. Numbers were lynched. The caretaker of a synagogue is believed to have been burnt, with his family, to death.
Let me give the House some details, which I can guarantee as facts. As part of the general destruction of Jewish institutions, a boarding school at Caputh, near Potsdam, was invaded and utterly demolished at 2 a.m. The young children were driven, without adult guidance or protection, into the night. At Bad Soden, the only Jewish home for consumptives in Germany was destroyed and sacked. The patients were driven away, wearing nothing but the shirts in which they slept. At Nuremberg the inmates of the Jewish hospital were forced to line up on parade. Some had just had serious operations, and one of them, my informant says, dropped down dead. At Ems, an asylum for aged Jews was raided, and the old people were driven out. A paralysed old man was driven from his bed, and his wife refused to leave his side. She was assaulted with an axe and her crippled husband was dragged away; at Bernsdorf, in Silesia, the boys in a Jewish camp were summoned to parade, and some were

missing. A storm trooper, so says my informant, at the point of the pistol, asked a young Jew if he knew the whereabouts of the others. The young Jew was either afraid to answer or really did not know anything about it, and he was shot dead immediately. As he was lying on the ground the storm trooper kicked him with his heels.
In a concentration camp at Buchenwald, near Weimar, 70 Jews were killed during the night of 8th-9th November. That is to say, before it was known that Vom Rath was dead. Dr. Goebbels tells us that these acts were the spontaneous outbursts of national anger. In our view there would be no justification if that were true, but there is too much evidence not to think that the attacks were organised, and that they were organised in advance. In all the raids on Jewish institutions a common plan was followed, such as the cutting of the telephones, the disconnecting of the electric current, and the smashing of the central heating system before the actual assaults on the buildings were begun. British journalists are unanimous in their testimony that the attacks were not spontaneous, but, as the "Times" said, all the indications point to centralised direction. Everywhere the police allowed them to go on. In the Fredrichstrasse district of Berlin traffic was diverted half an hour before the looting actually begun.
Not least among the mass of evidence which I could give to the House is the Government action which followed. If these acts had been the spontaneous excesses of the mob, the Government might have been expected to condemn them, to punish the offenders and make reparation to the victims. That was not what happened. Millions of pounds worth of damage has been done, and the Government proceeded to complete the work by decrees which ordered the Jews to pay a collective fine of £84,000,000 and to repair the damage done to their business premises at their own expense. That was accompanied by an order to the insurance companies not to pay them what was due.
By another order it was decreed that after 1st January no Jew may take part in any economic activity of any kind. In the meantime, they are not allowed to open their own shops nor even to go to the shops of Aryans. Most sinister of all, the Government began to arrest


all the Jewish men. All Jews of the male sex, from the age of 16 to 60, have been driven off to concentration camps, and in 80 per cent. Of the cases I understand their families do not even know where they are. Every Jewish charitable and social organisation has been broken up. Be it noted, for this is very important, some of these decrees at least must have been discussed before the attack on Herr Vom Rath had ever been made. On 3rd November, an article appeared in the "Schwarze Kaps," the official organ of the S.S., the Black Guard by which the concentration camps are conducted and by which other secret police activities are carried on. In that article the editor said:
Out of the hoarded wealth of the Jews we must compensate ourselves for the economic damage done to us by world Jewry.
The article indicates very plainly that something such as that which has occurred was even in official contemplation. I stress that quotation because I believe it gives the clue to the real character of events in Germany in the last few weeks, which were not the spontaneous vengeance of the people for a Jewish crime but the consummation or, more correctly, the penultimate stage of a long-term plan, the spirit and purpose of which are all too plain.
Dr. Goebbels would like us to think that nothing had happened to the Jews before Grynspan fired his fatal shot, yet it is five years or so since Jewish children in schools were compelled to ask for milk in order that the milk might be publicly refused; it is five years or more since Jews were humiliated in the streets and since posters "Jews not wanted" appeared at swimming pools and other public places; it is five years or more since for every Jew, as for the Liberals, Socialists, Catholics and others, the concentration camp has been a haunting thought that has never left them day or night; for five years or so we have forgotten what a concentration camp is like.
I am not going to pile up horrors, but it is vital that we should know what is going on. We should have a living picture of what people are enduring in Germany to-day. I have an account of a British observer, Mr. Arnold Forster, well known to hon. Members of this House, which is based on his own personal

observations in a camp in 1933. If I were to read extracts from that report, which has been published, hon. Members would feel physically sick. Things have not improved in concentration camps since 1933. I have with me an account written by a victim who in June of this year was in the camp at Buchenwald, where conditions were worse, I believe, than in Dachau. He tells of their ghastly convict work on the road, 17½ hours a day upon their feet with not enough food to keep a child in health. He describes the nameless tortures given as punishment for the most trivial offence. He says that of his batch of 2,000, 105 died on their feet in the first five weeks.
When we remember that this physical and spiritual torture has been going on for nearly six long years we can understand a little better, even if we do not excuse, the desperate act of a Jewish boy who was driven crazy by the fearful persecution of his parents and the people to which he belonged. We can understand, too, that these last drastic measures were not in any significant sense the result of Grynspan's act. They were part of a long and deliberate campaign moving with gathering and terrible momentum to its predestined end. That campaign was not ordained and it is not supported now by the German people. The Jews are the first to say that it is un-German. Germany was the cradle of Protestantism, the home of Kant, of a great trade union movement and a great free Press. Those who know it best—I do not—speak most warmly of the generous human spirit of the small post-war army which Germany was allowed to have. There is widespread testimony—I had it from an Englishman who returned here to-day—that the German people now are helping the Jews whenever they dare to do so. He tells me that even the police confess to him their shame and their disgust.
What have the Jews done to bring down this vengeance upon them? Sir Norman Angell has said:
It is inflicted for one reason only; in their veins may run the blood of the race which gave us Jesus Christ, His Mother and His Apostles.
Nothing is more certain than that it is no crime, no disloyalty, no treason of the Jews which has brought this fate upon them. We have good cause in this country to know the great services which


the Jews have rendered to our nation. Hon. Members will not forget the Jewish contribution to the building of the Empire, and no one will forget their five Victoria Crosses, their 49 Distinguished Service Orders, their 263 Military Crosses and their 329 Military Medals won in the last War, an amazing record for so small a section of the population. Their services to Germany were certainly not less. There, as well as throughout the world, they have made an unmeasured and an unmeasurable contribution to art, science, medicine, music, knowledge, literature, and all that makes civilisation worth while. Indeed, it was only when they were driven from their posts in 1933 that we saw clearly how great a part of what we called the German genius was really the genius of the Jews.
Perhaps Dr. Goebbels has forgotten what they did for Germany in the War. I have here a record of those who fell—12,000 Jews gave their lives in a population of 500,000; a proportion one and a-half times as high as that of those who fell among the white population of the British Commonwealth for our cause. In this book Field-Marshal Hindenburg salutes his Jewish comrades who had fallen for the Fatherland, and the German Minister of War says that they were true saris of the German nation. Certainly it cannot be said that the Jews have given any cause for the treatment they have received since 1933. They have shown in Germany as in Palestine a self-restraint which it almost super-human, almost beyond belief. They have met their affliction with an international effort of co-operation of which the greatest living authority on refugee assistance, Sir John Hope Simpson, says:
I do not think in the history of the world there has ever been such well organised, co-ordinated effort for humanitarian purpose as has been shown by the Jewish organisations in this crisis.
And he went on to say:
The Jews have not confined themselves to helping Jews. It is probably true to say that more Jewish money than Christian money has gone to help Christian refugees.
I stress these facts because I think they make it plain that this martyrdom of the Jews in Germany is not a national vengeance on a disloyal race. However it started, it has become a part of the Nazi party's plan to disrupt and dominate the world. I think it is now quite plain what

Dr. Goebbels means to do. He is not condemning the Jews to death; he is making it impossible for them to live. He means to rob them of all their worldly possessions, first for his party funds, and, secondly, for the bankrupt budget of the State. For years he has been stirring up anti-Semitism in other countries in order to increase the forces of disorder in the world, and now he is planning to drive out the Jews, in his own picturesque phrase, with one suit and a handbag, and leave them on the charity of the democratic world. And he is preparing to send them all. Consider his speech reported in the Press to-day:
We only want the world to be sufficiently pro-Jewish to take all our Jews from our shoulders.
What does that announcement mean? There are already at least 160,000, I think 200,000, refugees from Germany and Austria, Jews, Aryans, Socialists and Catholics together. There must still at least—I am taking bottom figures—be 400,000 Jews in Germany to come. There are somewhere between 300,000 and 1,000,000 non-Aryans, half-breeds as Dr. Goebbels calls them. There are many Aryans against whom persecution is still continuing, or has begun; Socialists, Liberals and Catholics, in an increasing degree. The programme of expulsion can be indefinitely extended at Dr. Goebbels' will. If he successfully executes his threats against the Jews in Germany can we hope that only Germany will be affected? Before 1933 anti-Semitism caused a certain amount of social discomfort in Germany at times of economic slump, but in Poland and Rumania it was an endemic malady, breaking out in violent pogroms from time to time. At the present time, to the honour of Poland and Rumania, their Governments are holding their anti-Semites in check, but if the Dr. Goebbels' plan succeeds, if he drives half a million penniless Jews upon the world, will not Poland, will not Rumania, say perhaps now is our chance to send away our 4,500,000 Jews and rid ourselves of this problem for good and all.
Where is this thing going to end? What is it going to mean to us before it is ended? Dr. Goebbels would like us to think that it is a domestic question, that it is no concern of ours how his Government treats the racial and religious minorities within their state. If the treatment of minorities is a domestic question


by what right did Germany concern herself with the fate of the Sudeten Germans two months ago? Certainly by no treaty rights. The treatment of minorities has always been a matter of international concern, and even if that had not been so, it is still true, as the Secretary of State for India said on Saturday and we thank him for it, that anything is international which stirs the conscience of mankind. But, alas, it is also an international question of a more material kind. We shall have to keep these unhappy human beings if Dr. Goebbels drives them out. There is not a Government in Europe to-day which is not already faced with cruel and urgent questions concerning refugees.
Let the House consider the prospect before us against the background of the refugee problem as a whole. There are still roughly 500,000 Russian, Armenians, Assyrians and others who have been refugees for 20 years, of whom we cannot yet say that they are settled. There are 250,000 Stateless persons for whom, as Sir John Hope Simpson says, no one is doing anything. There are 96,000 refugees, Czechs, Germans and Jews in Czechoslovakia to-day, and there will be many more. There are 25,000 Spaniards in France, apart from children. If Dr. Goebbels completes his programme, and if Poland and Rumania join in, what are we going to do? The outside world must have a programme also and it must have it now. I venture to suggest that that programme must comprise two parts. In the first place—here I speak in a most tentative manner, and I do not expect the Home Secretary to give any definite answer to-night—it must comprise action of some kind designed to check the persecution and the expulsion or penniless new hordes of refugees.
What can we do in that order of ideas? I believe that other Governments, like the Government of the United States, could protest in Berlin. There would be nothing new in such action. Our own Government protested in St. Petersburg in 1906 against the Jewish pogrom, and the present Archbishop of Canterbury was one who helped to see that the protest was made. The whole history of Nazi Germany shows that even verbal protests are worth while. In the second place, we can make it clear in Berlin that there can be no cordial relations between the German

Government and the British people while the martyrdom of the Jews, the Socialists, the Protestants and the Catholics goes on. It is hyprocrisy to pretend that in present conditions a feeling of confidence and trust can be pursued. No British Government has the right to leave Berlin with such a hope. In the third place, we may have to consider—I do not say more than that —whether we should not take measures of active self-protection. If foreign exiles are to be thrust upon us we may be driven to seek measures by which we cart make room.
Dr. Goebbels maintains what is called a "Foreign Organisation," and in a recent remarkable and well documented article in the "Quarterly Review," the author says that this foreign organisation is carrying on an insidious and provocative agitation by tens of thousands of agents. Every Government, even our own-perhaps most of all our own-is disturbed by the activities of Dr. Goebbels' agents. May the time not come when the number who receive our hospitality will have to be reduced? It was by threatening such action that Poland, two weeks ago, stopped the mass expulsion of Polish Jews; and there is another Government, which I will not name—a smaller country—which has successfully taken similar action by threatening the expulsion of German subjects. Dr. Goebbels' plan also creates a grave financial problem. Private and public money is now being poured out, and the time may come when we shall have to think of economic measures—taxes on German products, the control of German assets here—by which this grave financial problem which Dr. Goebbels is forcing on us can be solved
I have spoken of such self-protective measures, as I call them, in a tentative way. I shall be more positive, if I may, about the second part of our programme. We must certainly try to stop the persecution, to stop the flood of exiles who come, and at least ensure that they come with the men, with the breadwinners, and with some part of their possessions. But whether we succeed or fail in that, it is urgently necessary that we should have a positive plan to settle the hundreds of thousands of people with whom we know we have to deal. That plan is needed now. Charity is running everywhere to waste. I was told yesterday of


£50,000 raised in Switzerland to keep 3,000 Austrian refugees. Those £50,000 are already exhausted in keeping them alive. With a plan, most of them would have been settled for good and all.
What can the plan be? When we think of the vast numbers involved, it seems very difficult to hope for any real result. I remember thinking that when stood with Dr. Nansen, in 1922, beside the camps at Constantinople, of which the Home Secretary knew something and in the relief of which he played an honourable part, the camps where 100,000 Russians were living in conditions of unimaginable squalor. I thought the same a little later, when I stood by a stream in Eastern Thrace and saw the camp fires of flying families of refugees stretching away through the night to the very horizon. I thought it still more when I saw those same families on the quays of Salonika in the midst of winter.
Yet those 100,000 Russians were dispersed and settled throughout the world. If you go to Greece to-day, you will see the new towns and the new villages where the 1,000,000 refugees who came from Asia Minor have been settled in a new life, and have brought new strength to the nation to which they came. By that same machinery, after the War, in those early years of the League of Nations,
Dr. Nansen's High Commission settled, or helped to settle, 200,000 refugees in Bulgaria, 40,000 in Syria and Erivan; and by other means assisted hundreds of thousands of Russians to travel and to find work. Far greater numbers were then dealt with than all we are now confronting, and I believe our present problem can quite certainly be dealt with if the same energy and the same methods are used to-day. I speak with some assurance, because for several years it was my task to watch these schemes being carried through, and I think I know—indeed I have excellent cause to remember—all the difficulties and obstructions that are likely to arise.
Broadly speaking, what can be done falls under two headings—infiltration and large-scale settlement. Infiltration means dealing with people by individual cases or by smaller groups. If a specialist in surgery is driven from Germany and a new Chair is made for him in a Scandinavian university, that is infiltration. If a Russian count—I am speaking of

cases I know—gets a permit to drive a taxi in Athens, if a Russian engineer walks from Bagdad to the Nansen Office in Geneva and is given a job in a railway in South America, that is infiltration. There are great possibilities in infiltration, provided you have a strong and authoritative international machine to carry it through. It was by infiltration that the 100,000 Russians in Constantinople were dealt with. There are many ways, of which I will mention only one—the use, perhaps, of Jewish doctors in building up our health services in the Colonies, where the health standard is far too low. There are many ways by which we, through an international organisation, could use infiltration to a successful end.
More important is settlement, both in agriculture and in industry. It was by settlement that more than 1,500,000 people were given new means of livelihood in Greece, Bulgaria and other places I have mentioned, in the To years that followed the War. Of course, there is the problem of land, of which the Prime Minister spoke this afternoon. I admit that it is more difficult, perhaps, than it was in those cases, although in those cases it was not very easy; but I am bound to say that I am convinced that if the Governments bring good will to the matter, land can be found. Of all the countries that the Prime Minister mentioned this afternoon, I thought Palestine by far the most hopeful, and I hope that the Government are not excluding the principle of large-scale settlement in Palestine, where there is work ready to be done. I hope at least they will give permits now for the 10,000 children whom the Jews are eager to welcome. I hope Canada will take in, perhaps in British Columbia, on virgin soil, the Sudeten Germans. I know the Sudeten Germans. Canada would not find better settlers or more all-round settlers in any country in the world. The land is a big question, but it can be solved if other elements of a constructive programme are there. I was not quite sure this afternoon, as I listened to the Prime Minister, that they were.
I am sure that there are four conditions which must be fulfiied. First, there must be a real identity of purpose and co-ordination of policy between the different Governments. Let me give one example. A refugee—this is an actual case—was impounded as a vagrant, because he had no permit, in a certain


European country. He was tried and put in gaol. Then he was expelled to another country, where the process was repeated, and again he was re-expelled. In a year, £200 were spent upon the trials and imprisonment, while his family was a charge on the public funds. For half the money, the Nansen Office could have settled him for life. That is what happens—it is happening now—when you do not have a co-ordinated Government plan. There is misery and waste to all concerned.
But a co-ordinated plan means a strong international administration to carry it through. Dr. Nansen had his staff, he had the help of the Secretariat of the League, he had his own agents and offices in 20 countries. That was how we worked. Without it, we should have done nothing at all. It happens that, thanks largely to the efforts of the Noble Lord the late Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and his French colleague, M. Grumbach, the last Assembly of the League of Nations decided to appoint a new High Commissioner for refugees, with the same powers, the same budget, the same staff as Dr. Nansen had. I hope he will be used as Dr. Nansen was used, and I hope he will be encouraged to use his powers as Dr. Nansen used his.
Thirdly, there must be money, ready money for urgent needs, and long-term loans for settlement plans. Millions of pounds are needed. What disappointed me in the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon, as I understood it—I hope I am wrong—was that he is still relying on private charity alone. Private charity cannot solve the problem now. The Government need not be alarmed at the prospect of guaranteeing loans. They will not lose their money. These refugees are not like the Greeks and Bulgarians who were settled; they are very able, resourceful, educated people—one of the best investments in the world. If the Government can guarantee a loan for arms to Turkey, I think they ought to guarantee a loan to save these unhappy people. If they do, I think they will do quite as much, pound for pound, to make the British Empire strong and safe as they did by giving the loan to Turkey.
Lastly, there will be little hope of practical results—and perhaps here some hon.

Members will think I touch more controversial ground—without the regular, pitiless publicity of the Council and Assembly of the League of Nations. I know the difficulties to be overcome, the obstructions that will be made, and the vested interests that will interfere. Only the power of vigilant and instructed opinion will break those obstructions down. If our Government will rely upon that power, if they will use the High Commissioner of the League, if they will guarantee the loans he will require—in common, of course, with other Governments—if they will give to this matter the drive that was given to it 15 years ago by the late Lord Balfour, Lord Cecil and those who worked with them on the British Delegation, then I am very certain they can obtain the same results.
I think they might in some measure stay the tyrant's hand in Germany by the means I have suggested. Certainly they can gather the resources, human and material, that are needed to make a new life for this pitiful human wreckage. That wreckage is the result of the mistakes made by all the Governments during the last 20 years. Let the Governments now atone for those mistakes. The refugees have surely endured enough. Dr. Goebbels said the other day that he hoped the outside world would soon forget the German Jews. He hopes in vain. His campaign against them will go down in history with St. Batholomew's Eve as a lasting memory of human shame. Let there go with it another memory, the memory of what the other nations did to wipe the shame away.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Hammersley: I cannot claim that tolerance which the House invariably gives to a maiden speech, but I can ask for some indulgence in view of the fact that this is the first occasion on which it has been possible for me to address the present House of Commons. It seems to me that there are three moods in which this refugee problem may be considered. We may, like the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker), who has given us a speech full of incidents of the brutal and inhuman treatment which the Germans are meting out to the Jews, consider that every feeling of decency has been violated and in that mood we are apt to look upon these events in an atmosphere of indignation and resentment. Then there is the mood of intense


sympathy in which one is inclined to dramatise the record of human torture to be found in the tragic history of the persecution of the Jews throughout the centuries, and in the emotions aroused by that mood, we may forget the need for practical and effective action. There is a third mood which it is difficult for us to adopt, but which, I think, we ought to adopt. That is the mood in which we refuse to have our senses stimulated by sentiment, or our judgment darkened by indignation, and in which we look upon this problem of 500,000 refugees in Germany as just another practical problem which British statesmanship is called upon to consider and to solve.
It is because I think this last mood is the mood which will be most helpful to the settling of the problem that I propose to keep to it, in my brief examination of the position. We find that 500,000 men and women of Jewish race, but not all of Jewish religion, are looking round the world for a home and appeal to the British Government for help. Is there something in that problem which defies solution? Is its magnitude so vast, are its difficulties so complex, that we must recoil abashed from it and come to the conclusion that it is beyond human attainment to solve it? I do not take that view. Like the hon. Member for Derby I think that when we view this subject through the perspective of history, we see that a task of similar, or even greater magnitude, has been shown to be well within the capacity of a nation much poorer in possessions and wealth than ours. I refer to Greece. Looking at it in that light and recalling the fact that over 1,000,000 penniless, starving, homeless Greeks found refuge in that poor country, we must come to the conclusion, in confronting this problem, that the resources of civilisation are by no means exhausted. Many hon. Members are probably familiar with the masterly history of Europe which was written by a former Member of this House, Mr. H. A. L. Fisher. Referring to the defeat of the Greeks in Asia Minor in 1922 when the victorious Turks entered Smyrna, fired the city and massacred all of Greek blood whom they could find, Mr. Fisher writes:
Mere than 1,000,000 Christians fleeing that terrible wrath were rescued from Asia Minor in Allied ships, and by a great feat of benevolent organisation distributed through Greece and its Islands.

Later, referring to those refugees he says:
Greece became by reason of its industrious Asiatic immigrants richer, stronger, more populous than before.
A task which when undertaken, under the wise guidance of Nansen, in reference to 1,000,000 friendless Christians, proved to be successful, should not, in relation to 500,000 assisted Jews, prove insuperable. I hope I have made my first point, namely, that the objective of settling these Jews in other countries is well within the capacity of the world to achieve. I turn to my second point: Is Parliament, is the British Empire, in a position materially to help the achievement of this objective? Undoubtedly it is. Responsible as the British Empire is for a quarter of the surface of the globe, it is absurd to suggest that we cannot give great help. I am aware that this House cannot speak for the whole Empire, but it can speak for a substantial part of it, and it is from the Government that money can be obtained and should be forthcoming.
The most obvious way in which immediate help can come is from Palestine. There should be the immediate increase of the available immigration into Palestine. That will afford the assistance which is most necessary and most urgent. Palestine could, according to those who are qualified to express an opinion, take some 50,000 additional immigrants. I do not wish to dwell at length on this question of Palestine, because the House will be debating it on Thursday, and I turn to some other parts of the Empire where the immediate prospects are not perhaps so favourable, but where, in my opinion, a great deal can be done. We have read of what the Italian Government are doing in connection with settlers in Libya. British Somaliland, Kenya, Tanganyika and, in a smaller way, British Guiana will greatly benefit from the immigration of intelligent, industrious individuals whom Germany, having first dispossessed, is now driving out.
I know there are colonists who may say, that if we increase considerably the number of immigrants to those parts of the British Empire we shall intensify the problem of unemployment there and, alternatively, it may be argued that the present economic development of those parts of the world admits of only a very


small additional amount of immigration. I reject those arguments for two reasons. First, we can learn from what has happened in Palestine. I well remember being in this House when the present Opposition formed the Government of the country and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Sidney Webb—now Lord Passfield—told us that an increase of the immigration of Jews into Palestine by some 3,000, would upset the economic balance of that country. What has happened since? Over 200,000 Jews have gone into Palestine and the economic balance of the country has not collapsed. The proof of that lies in the fact that, great as the immigration of Jews into Palestine has been, the growth of the Arab population in Palestine has been greater. Therefore, it appears to me that a great deal of exaggeration may take place when one tries to assess what is the economic absorptive capacity of a country. These views are borne out by the last report which we have had, the Woodhead report, where, on page 31, it says:
So far as concerns the non-agricultural settlement, it would seem that economic conditions in Palestine are by now so closely bound up with Jewish immigration, both actual and prospective, that the Arabs in Palestine would be faced with the prospect of greater economic hardship if Jewish immigration should be completely closed down, than they would be even if it should be allowed to continue.
The argument that I am rejecting is that these various parts of the Empire have reached the limit of their absorptive capacity. Surely there is an urgent necessity for a greater development of our Colonial Empire. I am not trying to suggest that all these stricken Jews in Germany should be dumped in our Colonial Empire—that would not be right or possible—but I do say that if the Government base their views on what can be done on the conservative estimates of Colonial Governors—General, swayed by councils of settlers, then the estimate that the Government will give will be a long way from the real absorptive capacity of the British Empire, and a unique opportunity of relieving a heartrending human tragedy and restoring to Britain some of its waning prestige will have been lost.
There is another practical and important aspect which should not be overlooked. We are not dealing with a completely

friendless people. They may be destitute, but they have friends, and the financial assistance which organised Jewry can give is great. It would be impossible to suggest that these refugees should be dumped on various parts of the Empire without previous preparation and without capital, but the capital which is at the disposal of Jewry is great, and Jewry should be called upon to provide a great deal of capital. What it cannot provide, the great British people will endeavour to assist in providing. In my view, it is much better to lend to the Jews to build up our Empire than to lend to the new Czech Government in order to help to destroy it. Inevitably, when one thinks of these problems, one's mind turns to the United States of America, with its large Jewish population. What opportunities for cooperation lie here. Is it a dream to think that this German refugee problem and the American debt problem might find a simultaneous settlement? Certainly in working out the financial aspect of some of these schemes, that is an aspect of the matter which should not be overlooked.
To sum up, in my opinion, on severely practical grounds, the German refugee problem is a solvable problem, which the British Empire can materially assist to solve. It is more. It is a challenge to the inherent humanity of our race, it is a challenge which Britain, the champion of the oppressed, cannot ignore.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Mander: Surely the ham. Member for East Willesden (Mr. Hammersley), although he is not entitled to any congratulations, thoroughly deserves them for the speech which he has just made. I think we must have a feeling of universal disgust at the horrible brutality of what is going on in this exodus from Germany at the present time. It is nothing but a reversion to paganism and a repudiation of all those ideals for which Christianity and all other religions too, for that matter, stand. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker), in his interesting speech, gave a number of individual examples of cases of persecution. I should like to state one case that came under my observation of a rather different kind.
A month ago, just afterthe crisis, I was in Prague, and I went to the frontier one


evening in order to see the situation there. I found in the schools and in a waiting room at the station large numbers of refugees, lying down on their straw, overcrowded, and in a great state of terror and excitement. I inquired from them why they had come. It was surprising to find that these people, who were German by race, had fled from the Reich. It was at first sight an extraordinary situation, but the explanation was that between the retirement of the Czech troops and the arrival of the German troops there was, unfortunately, a gap. All reports show that when the German army arrived in the Sudeten areas they behaved with consideration and kindness to all these unfortunate people, and even distributed the cigarettes that they had for themselves. They do represent a body of persons in Germany who have certain standards of conduct. But during that gap, during those 24 hours or whatever it was, you had the real terror of Hitlerism at work. There was no one to keep order, and they were let loose, these troops of young Henleiners, who had been trained in Germany in terroristic methods, and they went all round the Sudeten areas, beating, shooting, killing, setting fire to their fellow citizens and the property of their fellow citizens. That shows the contrast between the better element in Germany and the more horrible element fiat unfortunately has control of the Government of the country at the present time.
Between the years 1933 and 1938 there have come out of Germany something like 150,000 refugees, mostly Jews, but, as has been said, there are potentially well over 500,000, again mostly Jews, in Germany who are capable of being sent out. In addition to those, there are a great many Catholics and Protestants who may be driven out, because it is clear that this terror is not being confined to one race or religion, but is going to be applied also to those who adhere to the Christian faith. We have to consider the reflex of all this on the nations to the East, because, if you take together such countries as Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Greece, there are something like 5,000,000 Jews living there, and in some of those countries, particularly in Poland, the Jewish question is becoming very serious indeed, and we may have very large numbers of these persons on our hands as well.
I understand that the Inter-Governmental Committee as it is called, before the recent crisis in Germany, estimated that there would be something like 500,000 Jews to be disposed of, and they planned that there should be the emigration of 100,000 a year for each of the five years. I am sure they now realise that these numbers will, unfortunately, have to be considerably added to. The question is where they can go. I understand that since the Evian Conference there has been some rigidity among certain non-European countries, particularly South America, where they have rather got the impression that there may be an attempt on the part of European countries to unload upon them a large number of persons who are unwanted here. It is essential, therefore, that in any action that is taken in Europe it should be made clear to these other countries that we are prepared to play our part to the full, and that there is no foundation for the suggestion that they are being asked to make all the sacrifices. It is most important that Great Britain should firmly and strongly take the lead and make it a major part of British policy to see that action is taken. If we were willing to undertake to find places in the Empire for, say, one-quarter of the numbers, and the United States another quarter, it might well be that South America and other countries would be prepared to absorb the other half.
Where would they go? The question of Palestine has been mentioned, but whatever we do to Palestine it must be recognised that it can deal with only a portion of the problem. We cannot solve the problem by sending all these Jews to Palestine. At the same time, it is absolutely our duty to see that order is restored and maintained at the earliest possible moment, that the mandate entrusted to us is carried out to the full, that emigration in accordance with the economic absorptive capacity is restored, and that we do not spend too much time consulting with other countries who really have no right to be consulted except as members of the League of Nations. I venture to hope that in considering the possibilities of Palestine, the great area of the Negeb will not be overlooked, because it is established that without creating the sort of difficulties among the Arabs which there are in other parts of Palestine, there are large areas which might be placed at


the disposal of the Jews for settlement in that part where a good deal of study has been given to the problem during the last year or so. The main problem is with regard to some part of the British Empire, either in the Dominions or in the Colonies. It really will not do for us to tell other nations, possessing the enormous Empire that we do, that we are very sorry but we cannot find any room in the British Empire. I am sure that that will not be the attitude taken by this country. The Prime Minister has made certain indications of territories where emigration might take place. I must say that I am particularly attracted by the idea of Tanganyika. It is a first-class suggestion for reasons which, I think, are obvious to us all, and there is no need to dilate upon them.
Let me turn to the question of finance, because it is no good pretending that this problem can be dealt with by private finance. It is far beyond that. Many of the organisations that are dealing with refugees at the present time are finding the greatest difficulty in carrying on. In dealing with these hundreds of thousands of persons no one would argue that the problem can be dealt with otherwise than through the Government. I understand that the chairman of the Inter-Governmental Committee has been unsuccessful so far in obtaining any response from the German Government in the negotiations for obtaining from Germany some portion of the property of the refugees when they come out. It is an intolerable thing that Germany should be in a position to throw out large numbers of her citizens and rob them of the whole of their property, and then expect the rest of the world to finance them and to look after them. Exasperated as we may be by a feeling of that kind, we must put humanity before money. If it does happen, we have to do the best we can for these unfortunate people.
I would like to make one or two suggestions rather on the lines of those made by the hon. Member for Derby as to the steps that might be taken, although I do not say that all of them are practicable. I venture to think that certain pressure might be applied to Germany. I do not want to use the word "sanctions," because that is not popular in these days, but certain pressure might be applied. There is pressure, first, of a diplomatic

kind. The United States Government have withdrawn their Ambassador, temporarily at any rate. If all the principal nations were together to withdraw their diplomatic representatives as a demonstration against this kind of thing, I should think that it might possibly make some impression. Then there is the financial pressure that might be applied, such as refusal of financial support, although I do not suppose that Germany is getting very much at the present time. Then there is economic pressure, for which there is an analogy in connection with a country not far from here. I should have thought that there was a case for imposing a pretty high tariff upon German goods exported to this and other countries, the proceeds to be used for looking after the refugees who are being expelled.
I agree with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Derby that consideration should be given—I have put it to the Home Secretary before in the form of a question—to the possibility of sending back to Germany a considerable number of Nazi Germans who, I am sure, could be identified and isolated if it were necessary. They should be sent back to the Reich, where they would be so much happier than being engaged on propaganda and agitation here and taking the place of refugees who could otherwise come to this country and be very much happier here. I hope that that is a problem that will not be overlooked. We ought not to rule out altogether the possibility of making a register of the property of all Germans in this country with a view to seeing whether, if Germany is going to rob the Jews of all their property in Germany and send them out, we should not appropriate some of their possessions here and use them for the help of the refugees. There are obvious difficulties, but I do not think that that is a matter that should be ruled out.
If we cannot do any of these things, we must go in for an international loan guaranteed by the central banks of issue for this purpose. I do not see any alternative to that. I hope that something will be done, on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Derby, by making use of the machinery of the League of Nations. I know that our Government are not enamoured of certain functions of the League, but they maintain, I believe, that they would like to use to the full its humanitarian side, and here is an


opportunity, through that magnificent sounding board the Council and the Assembly of the League, of focussing and expressing the public opinion of the world in a way that would be entirely appropriate and effective and in accordance with the views that persons of all parties have as to the possibilities of the League of Nations.
With regard to immediate steps—and some steps of an immediate nature will have to be taken—I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to say something about the camps which, as one reads, are being set up in Belgium, and perhaps in Holland, and tell us whether there is any idea of establishing temporary camps in this country in order to receive these refugees.

Mr. Maxton: It is hardly camping weather just now.

Mr. Mander: There are camps and camps. Further, I would ask the Home Secretary whether he does not think there is a case for amending the Aliens Act. I appreciate to the full the human sympathy which he, and the Home Office under him, have shown in dealing with the refugees. I believe they have tried to do all they can under the law as it is at present. But the Aliens Act was not passed to deal with a situation like this. It was never intended to exclude political exiles, and I should have thought there was a case for making it very much easier for refugees who have something to come to this country without enforcing all the rules and regulations which exist at present, which include getting people to guarantee them here for the rest of their lives. There might with great advantage be a relaxation of the rules. Another point is this: Refugees who have been admitted for a month or three months get a notification naturally when the time is up, and have to take steps to get the period extended, and of course it is extended, because there is no idea of sending them back, but the letters sent to them are of rather a formal nature and very often sound somewhat alarming to the persons who receive them, because they appear to intimate that the recipient must clear out of the country as rapidly as possible. I know that that is not the intention, and if some consideration could be given to the way in which the matter is put, it would relieve a good deal of anxiety.
I should also like to mention the possibility of the setting up of Czech factories here. Czechs in Sudetenland did a good deal of trade with the United States, and the good will they created with the people in the United States still exists, but it does not exist between the United States and Sudetenland, and those Czechs, with all their knowledge and experience are now leaving and setting up factories in France, as I know. I hope that encouragement may be given to them to set up factories here. Those factories will employ British labour and increase our export trade to the United States. It has been proved that more persons are employed by refugees at the present time than the number of the refugees themselves who have actually come in. Finally, I hope that the horrible sufferings of these people, whose only crime is that they belong to a particular branch of the human family, and one of the most distinguished branches of it, will so touch the hearts of mankind that immediate, practical and resolute steps will be taken by this Government, in conjunction with the other Governments of the world, to solve the problem.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Butcher: Those of us who listened to the account of the appalling happenings in Germany recently which was given by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) must have felt that behind the happenings themselves was a principle even still more sinister, and that is the deliberate prosecution, of a set policy of intolerance, in a country many of whose people desire to maintain the most friendly relations with this country. I believe that if such a policy of intolerance is allowed to flouring unchecked it will spread, and that in place of the present trickle of refugees there will be an enormous number of human beings who will beat themselves against the barriers which prevent them from seeking refuge in freer and happier lands. Civilisation as a whole must oppose against this spirit of intolerance some nobler and higher principle. It must recognise the inherent worth of ordinary men and women, and recognise that in God's world there is a place for each and everyone of us. In recognition of that principle the hospitable lands of the new world have offered asylum to those who were persecuted in their native countries, and in settling there they have enriched the countries in which they have made their permanent home.
We welcome the pronouncement that the Government are willing to assist, and I am sure that such an announcement will give much encouragement to those who are now enduring suffering, tribulation and persecution. But I think we must do a little more. We must make up our minds as to why we are offering this help. Either the refugees are a burden which, for very shame of our common humanity, we are compelled to shoulder, or, alternatively, they are a definite and positive asset, the value of which is temporarily forgotten in certain countries, the rulers of which are blinded by fear, by untenable and untested theories of race and political culture and the true position that religion should occupy in the State. Each refugee has a value not only as a producer but as a consumer, and the refugees may permantly enrich the life of the country which shelters and succours them, and that is the view which is held by those who have most carefully examined the problem. Is it unreasonable to suggest that a translation of that principle into vigorous action by this Government, in conjunction with the other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, the United States of America and the other free Powers, would do much to check the extension of what is going on? It might cause the present rulers in Central Europe to review their present position in the light of their own crude self-interest.
The extent to which assistance can be offered must vary from country to country. In this country we must be careful to safeguard the interests of our own workers, both as regards employment and the standard of living, but I am sure that the members of the trade unions and co-operative societies, who have not been behindhand in extending help to people in Spain, will be equally willing and eager to extend help and assistance to people from other parts of the world. While I welcome the statement of the Prime Minister this afternoon I confess that I have some feeling that the burden which the refugee organisations may be called upon to shoulder may prove to be too heavy for them, and I hope that the Government will see to it that those organisations receive all possible assistance in the way of skilled personnel and advice in the heavy task

which they are so honourably striving to carry out.
A reference was made by the hon. Member for Derby to relief by means of infiltration. That is an extremely valuable suggestion which may have great potentialities for increased prosperity and employment inside our own country. As he said, in dealing with a problem so large the method of assistance to be envisaged Is something in the nature of mass settlement, but before we are able to contemplate such mass settlement we must have a short-term plan of rescuing those who are most in danger and who are, at the same time, most likely to he readily absorbed in the countries of eventual settlement. A short-term plan would include the establishment of camps. The hon. Gentleman opposite objects to camps because the present time of the year is inclement. I would, therefore, call them places of refuge.

Mr. Maxton: Would not the hon. Member use the word "home"? "Camp" always seems to suggest something cheap and nasty.

Mr. Butcher: I will use the word "home," if the hon. Member appreciates that I refer only to a temporary home. It would not be unwise if we were to allow 10,000 of these people to make their temporary home among us. They could be selected in the country of origin and after selection promptly given the necessary visas to enable them to travel to this country. Obviously such permission could not be given without examination. Certain requirements would have to be fulfilled. We must, of necessity, select those whom we are most able to help. They could be selected from age groups capable of being self-supporting over a considerable period of years, and most likely to become loyal citizens in the ultimate country of their adoption. Good character should be one pre-requisite and robust good health another. Thirdly, there should be some technical skill. Such a plan would require finance, and I believe that a certain amount of it could be raised.
While the obligations of our common humanity rest on each and every one of us, they must rest on two classes in particular—first, on those who, having escaped from peril, now make their homes among us in freedom and liberty. Then, the class on whom the burden should rest


will be the citizens and sympathisers of the country which causes this immense amount of human suffering. We should not be doing any great injustice if we were to say that most citizens of German or Austrian origin fall into one or other of those two classes. Therefore, I would like to suggest an annual impost on the earnings of such citizens while in this country. I cannot imagine anything more likely to check this persecution than letters arriving home from ordinary Nazis in this country saying that incomes earned here are liable to increased taxation because of the increased demands made upon refugee organisations. Such a thing would probably penetrate right into the minds of those who are able to check this persecution.
We can thus raise a substantial fund, but the probability of a long-term settlement will require heavy and substantial finance. I suggest that a loan be guaranteed both as to principal and as to interest by such countries as are represented on the inter-governmental committee dealing with these refugees. The noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, speaking on this subject just before the summer Recess—since which so much has happened— said:
it is largely public opinion which must be the determining factor in this matter. We think that we have, as the result of the meeting at Evian, clone much to focus the eyes of the world on this problem, as being urgent and being one which requires the utmost sympathy of treatment.
That is quite true. Since then recent events have caused public opinion to move forward with a leap. The action of the Government has shown that they are prepared to keep in step.
I hope and trust that His Majesty's Government will set an example and will secure for this country the lead in relieving the suffering that is going on, and that they will demonstrate by their action that while in some quarters, falsely I believe, we may be thought not to hold our old lead in diplomacy or even perhaps—and, again, I believe falsely—our old lead in armed force, in the question of relieving and succouring the suffering this country will never yield her place to any nation.
I will end on a personal note. Last year His Excellency the American Ambassador was in the town of Boston which

I have the honour to represent. He was paying a tribute to the men who left Boston as refugees some 300 years ago. Have we the courage to realise that, in assisting these refugees to-day, we may be sowing seeds which, in the years to come, will enable these people to return from the settlements abroad to which we have helped them, in peace and amity to Germany and Austria?

9.3 P.m.

Mr. Logan: I speak to-night in the British House of Commons to voice my opinion upon the terrible happenings in another country. Not one Member of this House but recognises from the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) how difficult is the proposition before us and how urgent. It must he dealt with immediately. I speak as an orthodox Catholic, feeling to the depth of my heart the sincerity of the cause of the Jew. The oppression is all-powerful, but the exodus from Germany should take place in such a way as to give the refugees an opportunity for a fuller life. I do not wish to say anything adverse to the people of Germany, but this is my first opportunity of speaking upon an international problem after being in this House for nine years I feel that I should be unjust to the body to which I belong if I did not do so, especially as a great gathering is taking place to-night in Liverpool at which the Protestant Bishop of Liverpool and the Catholic Archbishop are on one platform together dealing with this great problem. Coming from the Scotland Division, I feel that it is essential that I should express my views in the House of Commons.
I am aware of what civilisation owes to the Jews. I remember well, only a few years ago, when one of the most illustrious men that Germany ever produced came into the corridors of this House and when I had the privilege of speaking to him, Professor Albert Einstein. What a great character, and what a commentary on a country which, with all its great wealth, will never allow men of that calibre to go back to it again. The deification of the State has brought them to a menial position, where neither talent nor even service is recognised.
We are asked in this Motion, and I am sure that no hon. or right hon. Member of the House will disagree with it,


to do our proper part as a British nation in the restitution, if that be possible, of a happier life for these refugees. I hear mention made of the question of money. If we cannot have civilisation contented, if we cannot bring sunshine into the lives of people, without being concerned with the question of money, civilisation is doomed. To-day an opportunity is offered to the British nation to take its proper stand among the nations of the world to protect a minority that deserves well of all the nations of the world. That may appear strange, coming from me, but I lived for 12 years among the Jews in the city of Liverpool. I knew them well; I traded with them, went into their family life, was at their christenings and their weddings. I know them well, and, because I know them well, and what we owe to them, I ask this Government to take its courage in its hands. Personal friends of mine are suffering great difficulties in Germany to-day, and my heart goes out to them when I learn of the terrible incidents which have been recorded and which have been so graphically described by the hon. Member for Derby.
No man in any part of the world can look upon the desolation that Jewry is undergoing in Germany to-day without wondering when the day of retribution will come for those who pretend to govern a totalitarian State in the interests of the German people. I am fully convinced, from my knowledge of the Germans with whom I have come in contact, that that is not the conception of life even in Germany. To me it is not the ethics of Christianity. In fact, humanitarian ethics are thrown to the winds. The totalitarian State wants all to be subservient to it. The conscience of man is to be destroyed. Because I believe that humanity has a right to a conscience irrespective of Governments, and a right to express what is inherent in it, I ask the Government to take courage and go on and do their right and proper part. America, in conjunction with this country, can play a wonderful part. The power of the British race is not decadent. Let the English-speaking peoples, with the power that they have, concert and come together in a work of this kind.
I feel that from the gloom of Jewry a regeneration for mankind is about to come. I feel that some of the incidents

of the past three weeks have brought about a different point of view in the whole English-speaking race, and that we people will be able to recognise and bring about in this House a common unity which we could never achieve under any conditions of political partisanship. Common humanity appeals to the British House of Commons to play its part. I am not unaware of the strategic value that may come about through the dispossession of the Jews in Germany, of the various vulnerable points in the British Empire that can be made secure, of the wonderful power of these people giving expression, in prayer to God, of their thankfulness at having been saved from their terrible plight. I am sure that, if we appeal, not to material things, not to dividends and so on, but to something higher and more spiritual in us, we shall be able to conceive some method whereby a regeneration of the community of mankind may be brought about.
In my humble opinion, we are at the turning of the roads. The nations are beginning to unite; combines are being made; a spiritual regeneration is coming about among mankind, even through the old dispensation. I am one of the new dispensation, and I believe that that blending is about to take place. I ask the Government to take into consideration the views that have been expressed. We are spending millions of pounds upon armaments for war; here is the opportunity for peace; here is the power to blend nations together; here is the chance of a revival of the Covenant of the League of Nations, of bringing about a forum where matters of this kind can be redressed, where an appeal to the best of mankind can be made. For these reasons I make my humble appeal in this tribunal of the British race. We could never set our hands to a better thing. To-morrow may be a hard day for us, but I feel that, by doing the things that are morally right, we shall achieve something which is worthy of the name of the British nation. I beg to support the Motion.

9.12 p.m.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I do not think there is a Member of this House or a person in this country who was not horrified at the senseless crime which was committed in Paris recently, or who does not feel sympathy with the relatives of the victim of that crime. Equally, there is no Member of this House


or person in this nation that is not filled with shocked horror at the treatment of the Jews in Germany. I do not believe that the vast majority of the German people are a consenting party to that treatment; I do not believe that the rulers of Germany themselves are unanimous in their support of that policy. I think the saddest thing which has emerged from the events of the last few days in Germany is that they tend to make an understanding between the peoples of the two countries more difficult to arrive at. This country and this House, irrespective of faith or party, have always been sympathetic to the sufferings of persecuted people, whatever their race or faith may be. Whatever our past history may have been, we have learned tolerance of those strangers in faith and race who live among us. For that reason I welcome the statement which the Prime Minister made in the House this afternoon.
I quite agree with the hon. Member who opened the discussion from the Front Opposition Bench that a place of refuge must be found for these people. It is our duty to help to find that place. I believe it is our duty to help in collaboration with other nations; I believe it can only be properly done if there is successful collaboration between the nations of the world. We are a sentimental people, but I venture to say to the House that we cannot be swayed by sentiment alone in this matter. Perhaps the most terrible problem of the times in which we live is the problem of refugees—the awful train of pitiful people who, for one reason or another, are the result of wars and differences of opinion and clashes of ideals in various parts of the world. We in this country have always offered asylum to the afflicted and the distressed. I venture to say that we have always gained by offering that asylum. I have no Jewish connections, nor one drop of Jewish blood, but I believe—and I think the House will agree—that no nation has ever prospered which has persecuted the Jews.
There are obvious difficulties in the way of a solution of this problem. The Dominion Governments are the only people who can decide questions of immigration into the Dominions. We can work in collaboration with them, but the ultimate decision must rest with those Governments. I am sure they are sympathetic, but, of course, there are limitations

on what the Dominions can do. As the Prime Minister said this afternoon, the Colonies are restricted in space. There is a very great deal to be done when you consider the problem of refugees, quite apart from Jewish refugees. Space can be found in the world to accommodate these people; but, in our desire to help this stream of refugees, we must not lose sight of the fact that there exists in the minds of many of our own people a very real fear lest there should be a tremendous influx into this country of refugees who are unable to maintain themselves and who would have to compete with our own citizens for a livelihood. After all, many of our own people are hard put to it to find work and a means of livelihood, and our primary duty in this House of Commons is to those we represent. Our first duty is to our own people. We have other duties, international duties, duties to the rest of the world, as well; but we must realise the apprehensions that are bound to exist in the minds of the people of this country. Our taxpayers and our ratepayers are already shouldering heavy burdens—shouldering them uncomplainingly and cheerfully. We cannot shoulder entirely by ourselves the financial burden of looking after the refugees. We have to be fair to our own people. The question of those refugees who are self-supporting and of good character—because that is important—is an administrative problem with which the Home Secretary can deal quite simply. The real problem is concerned with those who are not self-supporting, for whom some means of livelihood must be found, or for whom some possibility of advancement must be found elsewhere.

Colonel Wedgwood: Does the hon. and gallant Member include in that category those who are lucky enough to obtain affidavits from responsible persons in this country that they will not become a charge on the public funds?

Sir A. Southby: Certainly. I said that the question of those who are self-supporting is a simple problem which does not offer any great difficulty in its solution. World Jewry has always been generous and mindful of its duties, not only to its own afflicted but to the afflicted of other creeds. I suggest not only that Jewry throughout the world will help in this matter, but that it must help.
I welcome the Prime Minister's statement, particularly that part of it with reference to the desirability of refugees being allowed to bring with them their possessions and their money. The strongest possible representations should be made, in collaboration with other Governments, to see whether something may not be done to ameliorate the existing conditions, so that these people may bring something upon which they can live. We cannot allow any nation to rid itself of its liabilities at the expense of our taxpayers. Our taxpayers are sufficiently harassed at the present time, and we cannot allow any responsibility which should be shouldered elsewhere to be placed on them without at least some protest. We must safeguard the occupations of our own folk. We can do it best by providing opportunities for refugees which will not injure our own people, while they will, at the same time, offer hope and a livelihood to the refugees themselves. I listened with great interest to the moving speech of the hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench, and the thing which struck me most was his insistence on the fact that assistance to these refugees must be planned. Haphazard, sentimental dealing with the question would not be right; nor would it find acceptance with the people of this country. If help to refugees is to be successful, it must be planned in such a way that it cannot merit adverse criticism.
I do not agree with what was said as regards Palestine offering even a partial solution of this problem. There are sufficient difficulties in Palestine at present without desiring to add to them. I think that in that connection the Prime Minister's statement met with general acceptance in the House, as it certainly will throughout the country. It is in parts of the world where there exist ample space and opportunity that the future of these people and the future of other refugees can best be secured. It should be remembered that there are in London alone about 250,000 Jews. One of the difficulties in finding a solution of the problem is that many of the people from Germany are, as I understand, not suitable for work on the land. They are people of business occupation. Great assets they will be, I believe, to the countries which are able to absorb them.
I would suggest that, not only the Government but this House also, should bear in mind that it is outside this country—other, of course, than in the case of asylum given to those who will not be a charge on this country—in parts of the world where there is space and where these people can find a means of livelihood, that a solution will he found which will not only be something of which we can be proud but which will be of lasting benefit to the world itself.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I do not feel it necessary to speak at length on this matter, because I am tremendously pleased at the great unanimity that has been shown in all quarters of the House. I particularly want to congratulate the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) on the tremendously fine survey he made of the whole problem, and on the general spirit he displayed in his approach to the matter. But while I say I do not feel the necessity of saying much, I would not like to let the occasion pass without saying something. The spirit that has animated the speeches of other spokesmen to-night has expressed the sentiments that we in this part of the House feel on the subject. There are, I think, three aspects of it. One is an immediate one—it seems to me to be a matter of handling in days, and not in weeks or months—that is, the getting of the people away from the danger point where they are now. I think that should be done at once, and it is angersome to me to have case after case brought to me concerning people who have got all the qualifications for getting away, but who are delayed in getting a visa.
Surely the spirit of this House and of the country is not one of quibbling about office details, and I am particularly referring to one case. I will send it to the Home Secretary to-morrow. I think it is a particularly cruel thing for a man to be granted a visa and then have it withdrawn. I know that things could be said about him. He is a Jew, he is a Socialist, and he is a Socialist of a line not different from my own. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) smiling; he knows just how popular that fellow will be in Czechoslovakia at this particular juncture. The Home Office in their approach to this question of granting visas should not


allow trivial little things to determine their decision. The getting of these people away from the danger point is a matter of urgency, and the merit of the individuals can be looked into after their bodies are safe.
That is one thing. The second thing is their temporary accommodation. I agree at once that this is not a matter of days, but a matter of weeks or months, and one can be a little more leisurely about it. And I agree with the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) that either the short-term settlement or the long-term settlement of these refugees is not a matter for private finance; although, mind you, I am surprised at that coming from the hon. Member, because if I were a defender of capitalism and private enterprise of his standing I would say that an international corporation for the settlement and exploitation of the Jewish people would be one of those profitable enterprises that would show a very reasonable return on the capital invested. I think, however, I would take the term "exploitation" out of the title of my company. I would give it a more benevolent name.
But I do certainly think that if private enterprise and international capitalism believed in their own system they would say: "Here is a crowd of people as skilled, as intelligent, as hard working, as pertinacious, and as docile as any body of workers that you would get in the world. What more do you want? "But I think that international capitalism has not got the courage for that type of enterprise, and I am glad that it should be so. I prefer that the type of problem that we are confronting just now should not he confronted from the point of view of how we can exploit the Jewish people, but of how we can give them the same opportunities in the world as we have ourselves. That is perhaps not a guarantee of perfect security or of the certainty of being able to earn a livelihood.

Colonel Wedgwood: Will you allow them to work?

Mr. Maxton: Surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows my political philosophy perfectly well—that while I do not share the general enthusiasm for work, I am always delighted to let anyone who wants to go ahead. I believe

that any one of the great countries of Europe could accommodate all the 500,000. I believe that Scotland could accommodate 500,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is no chance of that."] That is a matter which has to be considered. I believe the Highlands of Scotland could accommodate 500,000. I believe that 500,000 Jews could make a better job of the Highlands of Scotland than the Highlanders ever did. But I know perfectly well that our industrial system cannot fit them in just now. I know that you have 2,000,000 people of your own that you cannot find work for, and I am not so foolish as to suggest that we should attempt to push a new group of that magnitude into the middle of an industrial economy that cannot utilise their services. But I say that there is a great vast territory over the control of which we have the last word, and that it is possible to place all the people involved in this immediate problem at some point in those territories, for a temporary period at least, without putting undue burdens on the district in which they are placed, and without causing additional suffering to the population that is already there. And I say that that should be cone and done speedily.
I hope that the Government, in conjunction with other Governments, are looking for a more long-term solution of this problem. And here I think the Secretary of State for the Dominions and Colonies in his forthcoming conference on the Palestine situation has to give very earnest consideration as to whether the failures up to now in that country have been due to the fact that the problem has been looked at in too small a way. I am not going into that—that will be debated here on Thursday, the 1st December. But it may have been conveyed to the right hon. Gentleman that I protested against the idea of his holding the two positions of Dominions Secretary and Colonial Secretary at the same time. I still protest. I think it is bad. But I think the fact that he holds both offices throws on to his shoulders on this particular issue a bigger responsibility than rests on the shoulders of anybody else, and I shall watch with very great interest to see whether he is worthy of the responsibility that is iinvolved. I expect from him through the offices that he holds the immediate solution of this particular problem, and I expect from the office


which he holds a big proportion of the long-term solution as well. These are the few words that I wanted to say on this matter. I and my friends are anxious that in the kindest and best and speediest way everything shall be done to give these people a chance to live, in the same way as the rest of us.

9.35 P.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): There is no page in our lifetime which is so tragic as that of the sufferings of the refugees in the last 20 years. Wave after wave of refugees has drifted across the world, uprooted from their homes, penniless, destitute, no country found ready at hand to receive them, separated from their families and their surroundings and, as it seems to me, most tragic of all, many of them have been men of intellectual eminence who felt that their life's training had been wasted, and that there was no future for them to carry out the professional work in which they held so eminent a place. I speak with some feeling upon this subject. As the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) reminded the House this evening, he and I at one time were directly connected with this problem, he more eminently than myself. While he was working continuously with Dr. Nansen, I was called in upon only one occasion to help Dr. Nansen in dealing with the Russian refugees in Constantinople and in the Balkans.
How well I remember this tragic experience, these thousands of men and women stranded upon the streets of Constantinople without means of livelihood, upon the verge of starvation, in a no-man's land which did not wish to receive them, and with no future, so it seemed, before them. I am glad to think that we were able at that time, as the hon. Member reminded the House this evening, to find a home for a great number of those refugees. I remember very well that I was instrumental in placing, I think, 45,000 of them in various parts of Eastern Europe. Since that time I have followed with the closest interest and keenest sympathy the tragedies of this problem. On the top of these waves of post-war refugees, Czechs, Armenians, Turks, Russians, Spaniards, comes the appalling problem with which

we have been faced in the last six months, and, in particular, in the last 10 days.
I rise at this stage of the Debate to explain the policy of the British Government upon this last phase of this tragic problem. Before dealing with the details that have been raised in the course of the Debate, I wish to make it clear to the whole House that the Government accept this Motion. No useful purpose would be served by repeating what the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on behalf of the Government, said at Rhyl on Friday last. We all condemn the senseless crime that led to the death of the German diplomat in Paris. We should not, however, be honest with ourselves or with the world if we concealed the depth of our feelings at the suffering inflicted upon thousands of men and women as the result of a crime with which they had no connection whatever.
I speak as a convinced believer in the possibility of Anglo-German friendship. I speak as a staunch supporter of the Munich Agreement. Indeed, it is because I am so anxious to see a complete and permanent settlement of the questions that divide our two countries that I frankly and unreservedly state my views this evening. I am opposed to all attempts to intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries, but the issue that has been raised in these last few days by the measures against the Jews in Germany, and the way in which it has been raised, forces it upon the attention of other countries. How can a question remain exclusively domestic when it involves scores of thousands of men, women and children, destitute and penniless, seeking admission into other countries?
Faced with this problem, let me explain to the House the policy that His Majesty's Government intend to adopt I will begin by stating as clearly as I can that, however deep may be our sympathies, this problem is, and must remain, an international problem. No single country can hope to solve it. While we are perfectly prepared to take our full share in any attempt to solve or mitigate it we must state, and state categorically, that it is a problem for all the countries who are at present members of the Evian Inter-Governmental Committee. Believing it to be an international problem. His Majesty's Government were grateful when the


President of the United States took the personal interest that he has taken in it and for the invitations that he gave some months ago to the Governments of the world to take part in the Evian Conference.
The House will remember the steps that then were taken. They will remember that a very distinguished citizen of the United States, Mr. Myron Taylor, at the invitation of the President came over to Evian and presided at the Conference. Thirty-two countries were represented at it, and as a result of its meetings a committee was formed representative of these various Governments, with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy as its chairman. Another distinguished public man from the United States, Mr. Rublee, is the director of the organisation. Since then my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have been making active inquiries among the States that comprise the representatives called together at Evian to see how the problem could be dealt with, and which of the Governments were prepared to take refugees, and to what extent. Although no very definite action has yet resulted, these inquiries have proved useful, and I hope that a further step will be taken, in the immediate future, when the officers of the committee meet in London, I understand in 10 days' time, when Mr. Myron Taylor, who is at the moment leaving the United States, will be present and will be able to consult with my right hon. Friend and his colleagues as to what steps should immediately be taken.
I give the House this information to show that, first of all, His Majesty's Government are very conscious of the responsibility that rests upon their shoulders, and, secondly, that the international organisation is acting with a sense of the urgency of the problem. I hope that in the near future we shall be informed of the decisions that will be taken after their meeting in London. I agree with everything that has been said in the Debate as to the need of the fullest co-operation between all the Governments concerned. I do not think that this problem is insoluble, but I do take the view that it is insoluble unless there is the kind of international effort to which the hon. Member for Derby referred, in which all the Governments concerned will co-operate actively, with an effective organisation,

for dealing with this very complicated problem.
I pass from the international organisation to the part that we, the United Kingdom, and we, the British Empire, ought to play in this co-operative effort. We are prepared to play our full part and to take our full share with the other nations of the world. We accept the responsibility that is on our shoulders, from the fact that we possess a great part of the surface of the world and that, owing to our wealth and other resources, we can play an important part in any attempt to deal with this tragic problem.
The Prime Minister, in his statement to-day, gave a picture of the way in which we propose to give our help. He said, and said purposely, nothing about the Dominions, and for this reason, that the Dominions were themselves represented at the Evian Conference, and they must speak for themselves. It is not for us in this House to speak for them. But let me say this in passing, without entering into any details, that I think the several Dominion Governments are giving very urgent attention to this question and that a substantial number of refugees have been already admitted into one or other of the Dominion territories.
I come next to the Colonial Empire. The Prime Minister described our willingness to place territory at the disposal of the refugees and, quite rightly, said a word of caution as to the difficulties that must be surmounted if settlement upon a large scale is to succeed. It sounds very easy when one points to the immense territories that are possessed by the British Empire, and one asks the question: "Is it not easy to settle so many hundreds or thousands in these millions of acres of undeveloped territory? "The fact, however, is that the greater part of this territory can only be settled after careful survey and after adequate preparation. It may well be that, with the best will in the world, some time must elapse before substantial numbers of refugees can be satisfactorily settled in the Colonies and Dependencies.
That, however, does not mean that His Majesty's Government are not taking active steps, as the Prime Minister described this afternoon, to expedite a survey of this kind in certain of the Colonies, to see how many and how quickly we can settle in one or other of these territories.


He mentioned several territories, Tanganyika, Kenya, Northern Rhodesia, British Guiana, and so on. When he mentioned British Guiana, the hon. Member for Derby asked him whether he was referring to the same territory that had proved unsuitable for the settlement of 5,000 Assyrians a few years ago. Some of the territory is the same. There is, however, another block of territory that we contemplate. In any case, there were special features connected with the Assyrians that made it difficult for them to settle in British Guiana. For instance, it was necessary to settle them all at once. I am told that many of them, owing to years of exile, had got out of touch with agricultural and pastoral pursuits. [Interruption.] It is not a smiling matter; it is a fact.
I want to suggest to the House, without exaggerating the possibilities, that the problem of the Jews is somewhat different. It is not necessary to settle them all at once. We might find temporary homes for them whilst they were being trained. Moreover, we are given to understand that if territory, either in British Guiana or some other Colonial Dependencies can be placed at their disposal, it is quite possible that large sums of capital would be provided by their co-religionists to support them for a considerable time. I would, therefore, ask hon. Members not to set aside the possibility of an experiment of this kind upon the ground that a particular territory in the past was found unsuitable for a particular type of emigration. What we wish to do is to test out all these possibilities, and test them with the definite intention of trying to find territory where immigration on a large scale is likely to succeed. As to Palestine, I propose to say nothing. Questions connected with Palestine are to be debated on Thursday, and the Prime Minister, while he gave the House to-day a figure to show that there has been considerable immigration of German refugees into Palestine in recent months and years, was right to lay stress on the peculiar difficulties which lie in the way of anything like mass immigration at the present time.
I pass from the Colonial Empire to a part of the problem for which, as Home Secretary, I am directly responsible—the problem of the United Kingdom. It may be for the convenience of the House if

I give hon. Members a full and detailed description of the position. Many of them, as I know from the correspondence I have had, are deeply interested either in the problem in general or in the fortunes of particular refugees, and I think it would be useful at this stage if hon. Members on all sides of the House were given further information about the problem in the United Kingdom and about the way in which the Home Office is attempting to deal with it.
Let me begin by reminding the House of some of the difficulties. In this country we are a thickly populated industrial community with at the present moment a very large number of unemployed. Competition is very keen with foreign countries, and it is difficult for many of our fellow-countrymen to make a livelihood at all and keep their industries and businesses going. It is quite obvious that there is an underlying current of suspicion and anxiety, rightly or wrongly, about alien immigration on any big scale. It is a fact, and we had better face the fact quite frankly, that below the surface—I know it from my own daily experience at the Home Office—

Colonel Wedgwood: Fascists.

Sir S. Hoare: I know it from my own experience that there is the making of a definite anti-Jewish movement. I do my best as Home Secretary to stamp upon an evil of that kind. That is the reason why I have prohibited demonstrations in certain parts of London where inevitably they would stimulate this evil movement. Faced with a fact of that kind, while I think very few hon. Members look upon this problem with greater sympathy than I do, I have to be careful to avoid anything in the nature of mass immigration which, in my view, would inevitably lead to the growth of a movement which we all wish to see suppressed. That means that we must keep a check upon individual cases of immigrants. I agree with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) that we must have as little red-tape about it as possible and as little delay as possible, but none the less, it is essential, if we are to avoid art influx of the undesirable behind the cloak of refugee immigration, that we should keep a check upon individual cases, and inevitably a check of that kind must involve a certain measure of delay.
We try at the Home Office to work in the closest co-operation with the various organisations that are directly engaged on the refugee problem. We have, for instance, the invaluable assistance of what is called the Co-ordinating Committee, a committee upon which are represented the principal Jewish organisations, the Quakers, and organisations of the Christian Churches. The procedure we adopt is to refer cases to these organisations and almost invariably we accept their recommendation. With our help they make the necessary inquiries, and when they tell us that an immigrant has either a friend who will keep him in England or can keep himself, almost invariably—I think I may say invariably—we see that the refugee gets a visa and is allowed to enter this country.

Colonel Wedgwood: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that they must get a guarantee?

Sir S. Hoare: What I said was that the Committee finds out whether his friends can keep the refugee or whether the refugee is likely to be able to keep himself. Further than that, we work in the closest co-operation with the Ministry of Labour, and where we see a chance of settling a refugee without damage to British employment or British industry we do everything we can to facilitate the settling of the refugee, and it is interesting to note that while during the period in which large numbers of refugees from Austria and Germany have been arriving, 11,000 German refugees have been settled in this country, the information at my disposal goes to show that they have been instrumental in employing 15,000 British workmen in the industries which they have set up, without, so far as I can gather, any damage to British employment or to British labour. Let the House remember that this is due to the very careful selection that has been made by the Co-ordinating Committee, the Home Office, and the Ministry of Labour. If there had been anything in the nature of mass immigration I think the story might have been very different.
Carrying this description of our machinery a stage further, the Foreign Office has in Germany two passport control offices which deal with the issue of visas to the applicants. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] In Berlin and Vienna. I admit that during the

last 10 days the machinery has been strained to breaking point. I admit also that my organisation at the Home Office has been strained to the breaking point. What else could you expect, with an organisation that hitherto was based upon a limited number of immigrants that could easily be controlled and now is faced with applications running into thousands a day? I can tell the House that we have already made considerable extensions to the machinery in Germany, at the ports here and in London. We admit it is still inadequate to deal with this great mass of applicants, and accordingly we are in the act of making a much greater expansion of the machinery, and I hope that by this means we shall avoid some of the delays that have inevitably taken place in the past.
The curious feature about the visas is the large number of visas that have been given and the comparatively small number of immigrants who have hitherto reached these shores. As the Prime Minister stated this afternoon, about 11,000 refugees have been allowed to reside in this country, but that is by no means the tale of the visas that we have given on the Continent. We have given visas on the Continent running into 50 or 60 or 70 a day, and when I have asked the reason for this disparity, I have been told that a good many of the refugees probably stopped somewhere en route and have not yet arrived here. None the less, there is the fact that we have given a much larger number of visas than would appear from the figure of 11,000 given by the Prime Minister in his statement this afternoon.
One should also remember that, however much we improve the machinery, in the nature of things there are bound to be delays, and in the nature of things there are bound to be failings. I have had innumerable letters from my fellow countrymen—I might also say innumerable letters from hon. Members of this House—and with the best will in the world often it has been difficult to identify the individuals about whom they have written to me, and even if they could be identified, to arrange that they should go to the passport offices in Germany and obtain their visas. I am afraid it often happens that a German about whom I have received some communication leaves his address, or it may be is taken off to a concentration camp, and we lose touch with him, and although


we are prepared to give the visa allowing him to enter this country, there is no means of making contact with that particular individual. I hope the facts which I have given to the House will enable hon. Members to see that I am attempting to deal as sympathetically as I can with individual cases and that I am attempting to make the machinery, both in Germany, in the passport offices in Berlin and Vienna, and in this country, at the ports and in London, adequate to deal with this mass of applications.

Mr. Bellenger: Must the individual travel to Berlin or Vienna?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir. It is only there that we have offices for visas.

Mr. Maxton: If the person is hundreds of miles away, has he to appear personally either at Berlin or Vienna, or can he write to the office in one of those towns for his visa?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: How do the passport offices in Germany, at Berlin or Vienna, get into touch with the persons for whom visas have been granted in this country? What is the machinery?

Sir S. Hoare: The machinery is that the individual himself gets into touch with the passport office. Further to that, I was not correct when I said that there were only these two passport offices at which visas can be obtained. Visas can be obtained at any British Consulate. The central offices in Germany are at Berlin and Vienna. The individual would have to get into touch with the nearest British Consul. I think that is the only way in which it can be done.

Mr. Stewart: One knows that there are long queues, hundreds and thousands of people, waiting to approach these Consulate offices. Sometimes it is physically impossible for them to reach the door. Would it not be possible for the persons in charge somehow to notify individuals for whom visas have been granted?

Sir S. Hoare: We must get the particulars on the spot. The hon. Member will see at once that we are in an awkward dilemma in all these things. The dilemma with which we are faced in this particular instance is that of not making sufficient inquiries on the spot and the man then arriving at the port here and having to

be turned back. The object of the visa system is to make inquiries on the spot, where they can be adequately made, so that when a man has a visa he is not turned back from a British port. We are attempting to improve the machinery. For instance, I was told to-day that where there have been long queues outside the Consulate, we are attempting now to communicate with the people who have been turned away on a particular day and giving them priority the next day. The House will see the gigantic scope of the problem with which we are faced. Those consulates which hitherto dealt with perhaps half-a-dozen visas, are now faced with hundreds and perhaps thousands of people outside their doors. All I can say to the House is that we are most anxious to deal with these cases, both as expeditiously and as sympathetically as we can.

Captain W. T. Shaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman putting a limit to the number of people whom he is going to allow in?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir, I have no such intention, and I hope the House will approve the policy which I am trying to carry out. I am opposed to anything in the nature of a quota. I think a quota is bound to have one of two bad effects, and possibly two bad effects. Many people might think it was too big and many people might think it was too small. I think it is much safer for the Home Secretary working in the closest possible touch with the Co-ordinating Committee, to treat individual cases on their merits and not to be bound down by a numerical figure.

Mr. Woods: Is the right hon. Gentleman making any special provision to expedite and facilitate the coming in of children?

Sir S. Hoare: I will cover all these various questions, if the House will allow me to deal with them in order. I pass now from the individual cases to a class of case which we can deal with en masse. Those are cases in which individual inquiries will not be essential. I begin with the cases of trans-migrants, that is to say, men, women and children for whom we might provide a temporary home here, upon the understanding that, at some time in the future, they will go elsewhere for their permanent home. We


are prepared to look sympathetically and favourably upon proposals of this kind. While the absorptive powers of this country might be limited as far as permanent residents are concerned, we certainly could take in a larger number of refugees for a temporary period, provided they were eventually to be settled in some other part of the world.
For instance, if we take as an example settlement in various parts of the Colonial Empire we shall undoubtedly find that the refugees, if they are to make good in those undeveloped parts of the Empire, will need an intensive course of training. I can say to the House that we shall look most favourably upon proposals for keeping refugees in this country during their period of training. An interesting experiment has already been started under the auspices of the Co-ordinating Committee for the training of Jewish boys for agriculture and Jewish girls for domestic service. The experiment is still in its early days, but I can tell the House to-night that, so far, it has succeeded satisfactorily. A number of boys and girls, running into some hundreds, have already been trained. A number of older men have also been trained here under the auspices of the Co-ordinating Committee; I believe to the number of several thousands, and have left this country after their training and are already beginning to make good in other parts of the world. We shall encourage and facilitate other experiments of this kind.
I come next to the very important question of the non-Aryan children. I think here again we can deal with a problem of that kind very differently from the way in which we have to check in detail the individual positions of the older refugees. I think there will be children with whom we could deal in large numbers, provided they were sponsored by responsible bodies and responsible individuals.

Colonel Wedgwood: By "non-
Aryan," does the right hon. Gentleman mean Jews and half-castes?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes. I had, only this morning, a very valuable discussion with Lord Samuel and a number of other Jewish and other religious workers who were co-operating together in attempting to mitigate the sufferings of their co-religionists. They came to me with a very interesting proposal about the non-Aryan children. They pointed back to

the experience during the war, in which we gave homes here to many thousands of Belgian children, in which they were educated, and in which we played an invaluable part in maintaining the life of the Belgian nation. So also with these Jewish and non-Aryan children, I believe that we could find homes in this country for a very large number without any harm to our own population. The Co-ordinating Committee and the other organisations told me that they would be prepared to bring over here all the children whose maintenance could be guaranteed, either by their funds or by generous individuals, and that all that will probably be necessary will be for the Home Office to give the necessary visas and to facilitate their entry into this country. I told Lord Samuel, without a moment's hesitation, that the Home Office would certainly be prepared to provide facilities of that kind, and I venture to-night to take the opportunity of commending this effort to my fellow countrymen in general. Here is a chance of taking the young generation of a great people, here is a chance of mitigating to some extent the terrible sufferings of their parents and their friends.
I could not help thinking what a terrible dilemma it was to the Jewish parents in Germany to have to choose between sending their children to a foreign country, into the unknown, and continuing to live in the terrible conditions to which they are now reduced in Germany. I saw this morning one of the representatives of the Quaker organisations, who told me that he had only arrived in England this morning from a visit to Germany and a visit to Holland. He inquired of the Jewish organisations in Germany what would be the attitude of the Jewish parents to a proposal of this kind, and he told me that the Jewish parents were almost unanimously in favour of facing this parting with their children and taking the risks of their children going to a foreign country, rather than keeping them with them to face the unknown dangers with which they are faced in Germany. He went on to Holland and found that Dr. Colijn, the Prime Minister of Holland, was prepared to give a temporary refuge to children and trans-migrants of this kind, provided there was a hope of our receiving them into this country. I can give Dr. Colijn the assurance to-night that we shall put no obstacle in the way of children coming here and living in the


conditions that were described to me by Lord Samuel and his colleagues on the Co-ordinating Committee this morning.
As to the question of a still greater effort, of some international loan, as was suggested in the course of the Debate this evening, these are essentially questions that can only be dealt with internationally. I can imagine that they are questions that will have to be considered by the representatives of the Evian Conference. All I will say to-night is that we are prepared to take our full part with other nations of the world. I hope that the House will see from the figures that I have given and from the attitude that I have adopted towards the future that there will be no Government among all these Governments more sympathetic than the Government of the United Kingdom, no Government more anxious to solve this problem, if it can be solved, and, if it proves to be insoluble in its entirety, at any rate, to mitigate to the utmost the suffering that is now inflicted on hundreds of thousands of unfortunate people.
Let my last word be a tribute to the representatives of the Jewish community in this country and of other religious bodies which have co-operated with them. Already they have done an immense amount of valuable work in helping their co-religionists. They have provided large sums of money, sums running into many thousands of pounds. Let us wish them every success in their mission of mercy. Let me assure them as Home Secretary that I will do my utmost to facilitate their work, to extend its scope and to show that we will be in the forefront among the nations of the world in giving relief to these suffering people.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: May I ask a question on a point on which my right hon. Friend has not touched? There are a certain number of people for whom we have a very direct responsibility, namely, Germans in the area which has been handed over from Czechoslovakia to Germany. The Home Office has granted 250 visas, and these people who are coming to this country are being supported by private charity. There is a belief that about 1,500 people are in direct and immediate danger of punishment, imprisonment or even execution if they return to Germany. May I ask my right hon. Friend to say a word as to the

policy of the Home Office in granting to the Sudeten Germans the additional visas which are desperately needed?

Sir S. Hoare: Our policy would be exactly the same towards the Sudeten Germans as it would be towards Germans generally. We must treat the cases on their merits, we must deal with individual cases, but, as my hon. Friend probably knows, I have dealt with several of them as matters of great urgency and in those cases, at any rate no charge of delay can be made against the Home Office.

Mr. Macmillan: Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that we have a rather different responsibility for the Sudeten Germans, because they are the people whose danger is the direct result of the Munich Agreement? Some of us feel that there is a greater and more direct responsibility for rescuing them from their peril, a consideration apart from humane considerations affecting the general question of the refugees, and would he not be prepared to expedite action in their case, because as he knows it may be a question of days as to their chances of survival?

Sir S. Hoare: I can only answer again by permission of the House. As far as I know, we are dealing with all the cases that have been brought to our attention. If my hon. Friend brings any cases to my attention I will see that they are dealt with at once.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. David Grenfell: The Rouse this evening has shown a wonderful unanimity of sentiment and feeling, which must gladden the hearts of Members in all parts of the House. Within the framework of a feeling of common humanity and a common standard of civilisation Members in all parts of the House have filled in a picture which shows the House of Commons at its very best. The sentiments which come to the surface of our national life on great occasions have been displayed with a clearness and a vigour which must have an influence on all countries which are to co-operate with us in this great task. We owe the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) a debt for his magnificent opening speech, in which he put on record much of the tragedy and injustice associated in all lands with the history of the Jewish


people. Other hon. Members have shown a sympathy which is representative of the feeling of the mass of the people for whom we speak in this House. I must also pay a tribute to those hon. Members who are of the Jewish race and religion for the restraint they have displayed in refraining from taking up the role of special pleaders and, instead, reposing their confidence in a House of Commons where we are all free to speak without regard to race or religion.
In announcing the acceptance of the Motion the Home Secretary made reference to the various categories of refugees, and I was particularly glad that he included not only the Jews, who form the most compact and the largest body of refugees, but the Czechs, and I am glad also that he referred to the case of the Spaniards. Spain has a tremendous refugee problem, which we here may be tempted to forget because of the more sensational reports from other parts of Europe. I am particularly grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having just mentioned with the others the refugees in Spain. I want to pay a tribute, also, to the description given by the Home Secretary of the machinery and the procedure for granting permits. I realised that he would be unable, even though he devoted the whole of his speech to the subject, to portray faithfully and fully the tremendous work done by his staff in this country and abroad. I have had the privilege of seeing his staff at work in this country. I have seen two passport control stations abroad within the last few months. I have seen queues of destitute people. I have seen the plight of those people, their nervous condition, their apprehension and their despair when they have come to the passport control offices in Vienna, Berlin, Prague and elsewhere. They have come as though they were facing the tribunal which was to decide life and death for them. Many of them, on account of the unavoidable delay, have given way to despair and have taken their own lives because they could not stand the strain of waiting for the relief that might have come had they been able to wait.
I have seen the passport control officers—it is due to them that I should say this in this House—discharging their duty in those circumstances, and I have never witnessed a single sign of discourtesy or impatience on their part. They have talked with courtesy to every applicant

who came along and who, because of sheer nervousness, might not be able to make the best of his case. The passport officers have helped such people to make their case. I have been thrilled by it, and filled with very deep gratitude indeed to the men who were thus serving the cause of humanity.
I may be pardoned if I choose to pay tribute to the Jewish people, the race which we know better than we know any other race. We have known of this race from the beginning of our days when we have heard Scriptural lessons and have read the texts and the stories of this race in olden times. We have learned very much about the names and characters of the great leaders of the Jewish people, and subconsciously we have learned to cherish in our hearts great respect and veneration for many of the people who have been the object of persecution. In most nations and lands, century after century, has the Jew been singled out for persecution. Nobody has suffered as much. Anti-Jewish propaganda and persecution, pogrom, confinement, limitation, the Ghetto and the cell of punishment are more familiar to this people than to any other. Political, social and religious disabilities have been heaped upon them, with all the contumely and contempt which other nations could muster in their discrimination against this unfortunate people.
They have survived, and what a tremendous thing it is that they have survived. After centuries of suffering the Jews have never failed, when the opportunity has been given to them, to make a handsome and generous contribution to the life of the community in which they have been allowed to participate. We are glad to know that in recent decades in the last century, and during the last 60 years in particular, a new attitude towards the Jew has grown up in all the countries of the world. The process of enlightenment has been gradual and slow, and subject to reservations and disturbances from time to time, but the Jew was improving his status by merit and by the common recognition of those with whom he lived. The emancipation of the Jew brought to the Jew himself a problem. I never quite understood this problem until I met a very learned Jew, who was an emigrant. I accompanied him on a journey from Zurich to Vienna. We


travelled all night, and talked the whole night. This man, who was unable to return to his native country, Germany, told me what contribution he thought the Jew could make. The Jews, only recently escaped from the limitations of the ghetto into the political conditions that surround them to-day, had a contribution to make to the citizenship of the world. I came to understand the Jew better, and to understand the problems of Jewry better, after that interview, and my sympathy was not diminished by what this very wise Jew had to say about himself and his people.
I felt distressed by the growing reaction in Germany. I saw its beginnings in 1928 and 1929. Then I saw simple little leaflets urging people not to buy of the Jews. They seemed very small and ridiculous, but they grew into big posters and cartoons, with distorted pictures. I have seen the weekly publication of Dr. Streicher week after week, and have been horrified at the possible results of the continuation of propaganda on these lines. We have seen bitter attacks upon the Jewish race. They have become a part of the propaganda stock-in-trade of some of the largest and most powerful countries in the world. This constant malicious propaganda has had its result. In Germany, in 1933, there were 600,000 Jews, and in Austria at the same time 200,000 more. They amounted to about one per cent. of the German population of the two countries; one in every 100 persons was a Jew. I have asked myself time and time again why should the 99 show such malevolence against the one? Why should not the 99 so order their lives that it was possible for the one to live in peace among them? I have never been able to understand why that could not be done. When I saw the measures which were described at the Refugee Conference as involuntary emigration, I saw what I feared might be the beginning of a vast compulsory exodus of these people from the German-speaking countries, an exodus due to the propagation of an admiration for the one race and a detestation for the other which was thoroughly unjustified and unwarranted by the history of Germany herself. The Jews have done much to enrich that country, and not merely by money. Money is not all to the Jews. The Jew is sometimes charged with being a very acquisitive person, but nobody gives

more readily of the fruits of his genius than the Jew does when he gets the opportunity. He has given much to Germany and has given much to the world in the arts, in literature and in science.
Now, at this time of involuntary emigration, 40,000 German Jews have found a home in Palestine alone. It was a blessing that the Mandate was taken in Palestine before this crisis came upon Europe. Altogether, nearly 300,000 Jews have gone to Palestine since 1920, and 40,000 in the last three years. The absorptive capacity of Palestine has been very much in the picture to-night, as it always is in connection with this question of dealing with the Jews. I would urge the Home Secretary and the Government, if they need urging, to lend the weight of their influence in the conference which is to be held in about a week's time in London, and so to arrange affairs in Palestine as to allow of a free flow of emigration to that country at the maximum rate of absorption of which it is capable. I feel quite sure, from what I know of Palestine, that there will be no difficulty, given peace in that country, in settling 50,000 emigrants per year in that country. If that were done over a period of five years, tremendous relief would be given. This problem is increasing in magnitude, approaching very grave proportions indeed; and I agree with the Home Secretary that there is immediate need for prompt international measures. The Home Secretary pledged this country, and I was very glad to hear him do so. I believe him to be sincere in that. It will give this House much confidence; it will give Jewry much confidence; it will give the people of the world much confidence; and I hope the leadership, once assumed in this matter, will not be dropped by this country but that we shall maintain the leadership until the day of freedom for these people has arrived.
I want to speak of the contribution due from Germany towards the solution of this problem. This large and powerful nation of nearly 80,000,000 people cannot be allowed to pass these Jews out, stripped of everything, dump them over the frontier, and say, "I do not want the Jews in my country; you must take them." Why should the Germans be allowed to do that? Why should they assume that, because they do not like


these people, they will be allowed to dump them on somebody else? I agree that there is no need to offend anybody, but an offence has been committed against the whole world by the action Germany has taken. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, speaking either at Evian, or after Evian, said:
Evian may offer a palliative. It cannot lake from the shoulders of Germany the consequences that will follow the relentless persecution and segregation of a large element of its population.
The right hon. Gentleman should not be ashamed of such a statement.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Winterton): I am not in the least ashamed of it, but I do not recollect it.

Mr. Grenfell: I may have picked up the wrong cutting, but it is at least a statement worthy of the right hon. Gentleman himself. There is something far greater—and I do not think Hitler would object to this statement—than Hitler's Germany. There is a large humanity which surmounts and overrides these petty vanities of small peoples wherever they may be. Sixty or seventy years ago, the great Sage of Chelsea, Thomas Carlyle, this man who was so wise and disatisfied with the rest of the world, who grumbled and scolded us severely, said, in "Sartor Resartus":
Man's unhappiness is, I construe, because of his Greatness. It is because there is an infinite in him, which with all his cunning he cannot quite bury under the Finite. Will the whole Finance Ministers and upholsterers and confectioners of modern Europe undertake in joint stock company to make one shoeblack happy. They cannot accomplish it above an hour or two, for the shoeblack also has a soul quite other than his stomach, and would require, if you consider it, for his permanent satisfaction and saturation, simply this allotment, no more and no less: God's infinite universe altogether to himself, therein to enjoy infinitely and fill every wish as fast as it lose.''
There is something far more than the mere ambitions of small-minded men. There is in this humanity of ours an irresistible force working for freedom and largeness and generosity of mind, and no dictator can set the limit to that force. If Germany cannot let Jews live in peace, she should let them take means of starting afresh in other parts of the world, where Jews may be more welcome, and where the Jew has a right to be welcome.
Someone has said to-night—and I do not think there is any offence in saying this—that if Herr Hitler will cast out the Jews, does it not occur to him that there might be an exchange in this transaction? There are 20,000,000 or 30,000,000 Germans in other parts of the world, and if the soil of any one part of the world is peculiarly destined for the use of one people and the Jews have no right of domicile in Germany, Herr Hitler might find a transaction, where people are driven out on his terms, in which 50 Germans may have to go back to Germany for every Jew driven out. That is a fundamental of civilisation—a principle of give-and-take which is the very basis of civilisation tself. I am convnced this physical problem is quite easy of adjustment. This is only a very small problem for the world. But there is a great moral question. How is it to be solved? We must try to learn to understand and, with understanding, to tolerate and to make accommodation for it. That is the problem for the nations of the world in the years ahead of us in which toleration reigns. There is not much difference between Jew and Gentile. There is not an unbridgeable gulf between German and Briton, or between German and Frenchman. We have simply ignored the lessons of history and refused to understand the forces which operate in our own times. History cannot be undone in a day, even by dictators. It has taken a very long time for man to write his history up to date—a painful effort, much of it mere scrawling and scribbling, but it has been written. It is folly for any one person to attempt to unwrite that which has been written, and if we are not satisfied with the conditions of to-day then we must all of us learn to write better.
And in this let the example be once again given by a Jew. I would remind the House that on 4th June, 1922, Dr. Walther Rathenau, German Minister for Foreign Affairs, was assassinated while driving through Berlin on his way to work. He was a very important statesman in Germany. Rathenau was a world figure in his day, but he was a Jew. His assailants were young Nationalists. One of them was 17 years of age. What was the reaction of the German people on the day of the murder, a Sunday? Great processions of workmen, hundreds of thousands strong, and four abreast,


marched solemnly and silently in mourning through the streets of Berlin, mourning for a Jew. At the funeral on 27th June President Ebert said:
This atrocious crime has struck not only at Rathenau the man, but at the whole German people.
The reports in the paper I have before me said that the last word on the human side of this tragedy came from Rathenau's mother. She wrote this letter to the mother of Ernest Techow, one of the accused:
In my unspeakable grief I stretch out my hand to you most suffering of women. Tell your son that I forgive him in the name and spirit of the murdered man as may God forgive him if before an earthly justice he makes a full and open confession and repents before the justice of heaven. Had he known my son, the most noble that the earth has borne, he would sooner have turned the murderous weapon on himself than on him. May these words give your soul peace.— Mathilde Rathenau.
That is the spirit of the Jew mother who has lost her dear son at the hands of a Nationalist in Germany, an Aryan, a member of the German race. Would that these words and the spirit of these words be brought into play in Europe, suffering Europe, perplexed Europe, distressed Europe. Should not these words of forgiveness, toleration and understanding be spoken once again, loud and clear enough for the whole of the world to notice? If these were given response to in some countries in Europe to-morrow this problem of dealing with the refugees would be taken from our hands. While we have waited for the response to that message spoken by one country to-day, by another country to-morrow, increasingly I hope, by a larger number of people of all sections and all races, by this message of understanding, toleration and forgiveness, we have a splendid opportunity of raising our own level and rising to be worthy of our own standards in carrying out this task of relief and salvation and providing refuge and security which men need because of the follies of mankind.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House notes with profound concern the, deplorable treatment suffered by certain racial, religious, and political minorities in Europe, and, in view of the growing gravity of the refugee problem, would welcome an immediate concerted effort amongst the nations, including the United States of America, to secure a common policy.

DEBTS CLEARING OFFICES AND IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ACT, 1934

RUMANIA ORDER

10.59 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I beg to move,
That the Clearing Office (Rumania) Amendment No. 2 Order, 1938, dated the ninth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, made by the Treasury under the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-eighth day of September, nineteen hundred thirty-eight, be approved.
The history of this Order goes back to 1936, when owing to an accumulation of debts owing to this country by debtors in Rumania it was found necessary to impose a clearing. Owing to the fortuitous circumstances of a very good harvest in Rumania and the relative failure of harvests in the rest of the world, exports from Rumania in 1936–37 rose and the clearing worked exceedingly well. It worked so well that in May, 1937, it proved possible for certain amendments favourable to Rumania to be made, but the expectation that the favourable conditions of 1936–37 would continue, were falsified, and there has a gain come the grave risk of substantial arrears accumulating. In order to remedy this state of affairs the present Clearing Agreement was negotiated.
I do not think I need go into the very complicated details of the Payments Agreements. It will probably suffice if I say that the main object of this agreement is to encourage Rumanian exports to this country, and the method that we have adopted to encourage those exports is to enable the Rumanian exporter to obtain more lei for his exports. Hitherto, he has had to surrender his sterling to the clearing office in London and receive from the National Bank of Rumania the equivalent in lei at the rate of about 670 lei per pound sterling. Under the procedure set up by this agreement he will, in future, be able to sell 60 per cent. of his sterling in the open market and this obtain more lei, and only for 40 per cent. will he be compelled to take the official rate. As the open market rate for sterling is at the present time well over 1,000 lei to the pound, it will be realised the result of this new arrangement will be that the exporter in Rumania will obtain instead of 670 probably something


in the neighbourhood of 900 lei. We hope that the new arrangement will result in increased exports from Rumania to this country, and that it will liquidate the debts that have been already incurred, and enable exporters from this country to increase their exports to Rumania, and to be paid without the delay from which they at present suffer.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman did not think it necessary to go into all the details of this somewhat long and complicated clearing arrangement, which are set out in the White Paper. I have had some experience in trying to understand clearing agreements, and I confess that, after going meticulously through this one from beginning to end, I was very much in doubt as to what was the main effect of this new plan. However, through the courtesy of the Minister I have had an explanation, which afforded to me an opportunity of gathering the principal change which he has enunciated. I understand that the main intention is contained in a few lines on page 7 of the White Paper, at the end of the first paragraph of Article it in these words:
Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2) of this Article payment shall be made from the General United Kingdom Account At the sole request of such persons or banks in Roumania or of their nominees to the extent of the amounts standing to the credit of their respective Sub-Accounts.
I am informed that the words "at the sole request of such persons" produce the very considerable change which we have been told is the purpose of the new agreement.
Getting away from the details to the substance of the change, I understand that the position is this. I understand that the clearing arrangement has worked with the exchange at a purely artificial rate of about boo lei to the £. That would appear to give our exporters a considerable advantage because it enabled them to get more pounds for the goods than they would normally get. But it is one thing to get an advantage on paper and quite another to get it in your own pocket, and if as a result of this artificial exchange they did not get any money at all and were unable to carry on the export business with any profit, then it is better to be paid less pounds than to get nothing at all. The effect of the new agreement is that although on paper British exporters

will be worse off, the fact that they will be paid something instead of nothing is undoubtedly an advantage to them. And those who are exporting goods from Rumania will get the advantage of the change in the exchange rate. Therefore, although the effect on paper is deleterious to this country really it is a great advantage, a substantial advantage on a position which has not worked successfully for some time past.
The actual position is that debts have been piling up which have not been liquidated, and that our exporters have not been paid money. Therefore, on the broad principle of the agreement I think it is beneficial, and I desire to give it my support. But there is one point to which my attention has been directed and in regard to which I have one adverse criticism to make. There is a certain amount of latitude as to time in payment, and this works out unfairly in many cases between different exporters in this country. I should like to see a clause inserted in some of these future agreements establishing a strict chronological order of payment in place of the system which allows a spreadover credit, and which therefore enables certain exporters to get an advantage at the expense of others. I am informed by my correspondent to this effect:
The effect of such a spreadover means preferential payments, and thus A may be supplying the same goods as B, but A will receive payment, it may be, weeks or even months earlier than B. The period of credit A gives will be less than that demanded from B, irrespective of the terms of his contract, since payment of his accounts depends upon validity of sterling credit, and, in the case of the smaller British exporters, the indetermined period of credit does create difficulties for them, which with a strict chronological order of payment would be eliminated.
The effect of that, of course, is that influential and powerful houses are not only able to make better contracts on paper than are their less influential rivals, but they are able, by their general "pull" on the financial institutions, to get payment at a considerably earlier date than their rivals. I do not see why that should be so. When we are working through this official apparatus of the clearing house, I should have thought that it would be possible to effect a chronological sequence of payments, which would mean that all the different people would be treated alike, instead of there being preferential treatment, as there is at the present time.
It has been pointed out to me—and I put this to the Minister as a very strong argument in favour of following some such course in future clearing agreements—that the only redress that is open to those who wish to get payment promptly, in countries where such methods are possible and work, is by "greasing the palm" of those who have the system to work. I do not say that that exists in any one country, but it is well known in this House that outside our own country, it is by no means an unusual method of securing preferential treatment. If that be the case, as I have no doubt it is, it certainly provides a very good reason why, in agreements that we make, we should take such steps to see whether that purely chronological sequence, with no favour for one person as against another, can be adopted. I hope the Minister will find it possible to say a few words in reply to these points, and that he will be able to assure me that certainly consideration, and perhaps a little more than consideration, will be given to this matter in future agreements, when they are made either between those countries which are the subject of the present clearing agreement, or between other countries with which clearing arrangements are made from time to time.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Petherick: I am a little uncertain as to what the right hon. Gentleman meant by the expression "spread-over," but I entirely agree with him that payments under these agreements should be made in chronological order. There are one or two points that I would like to make. In the first place, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in the early summer, in relation to the clearing agreement with Italy—this is a similar agreement—gave a warning to British exporters that the clearing agreement was so formal, so tight, as it were, that British exporters could not get their money quickly enough, and consequently it was rather inadvisable for them to undertake heavier forward contracts. A number of firms in this country, particularly in my own constituency, became rather nervous, and unwilling to sell to Italy in consequence of that statement.
In the case of Rumania, do I understand that the difficulties in the clearing

agreement make it rather inadvisable, for the present, to make further considerable contracts to Rumania, or is it perfectly open and safe for British exporters to go on selling to that country in the immediate future? I think it would reassure a good many exporters to Rumania if they could have some guidance on that point. The other question I would like to ask is this. Can my right hon. Friend say how long will be the delay between the time when the money is paid by Rumania into the clearing house and the time when the British exporters will receive their money? In the case of Italy, it is about four months, which is a considerable period. It would be interesting to know how long one may expect it to be in the case of Rumania.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said about this Agreement. He said that one of the results of increasing the cost of the pound sterling might be a disadvantage to the British exporter. I think I can reassure him on that point because the fact that the compensation rate is at present very much higher in the open market than the official rate of exchange-shows that United Kingdom goods are still competitive and that there is still a demand for United Kingdom goods in Rumania, even at the higher rate of exchange. We hope that one of the results will be an increase in the total sales of Rumanian produce to this country arid therefore it will be an advantage to the exporter. He also asked about the question of chronological order. I agree that in the past there has been definite ground for complaint but if he will be kind enough to look at Article 7 he will see that it says:
Payments under this Article shall he made in respect of the whole or part of a debt to the extent to which the debtor provides lei for the purpose, so far as possible in chronological order of due date.
I hope we have succeeded in getting over the difficulty mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman also talked about the practice in certain countries of "greasing palms." We all know cases, and I believe it was very prevalent in Rumania, but 1 am sure he will be glad to know that, as far as our information goes, King Carol has succeeded in making a very drastic improvement in that country in the last few months in the way of stopping abuses


of this kind. I believe that M. Constantinescu, who is at present the Governor of the National Bank, has sacked a very considerable number of his employés for that very reason, and that it is at present well known in the Bank that any employé found guilty of that practice will also be immediately dismissed. I hope, as far as that is concerned, that we may see a definite improvement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) asked what was the delay at the present moment. Of course, the object of this agreement is to try to avoid delays accumulating. I am told that, if the Rumanian importer arranges for sterling to be bought at once, there should be no delay; but clearly, if our expectation is carried out, and if Rumanian exports to this country increase, there should be no more of the delays that have occurred in the past.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Clearing Office (Rumania) Amendment No. 2 Order, 1938, dated the ninth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, made by the Treasury under the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-eighth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, be approved.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills, and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the Reports of the Committee do set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition, provided that on every sheet after the first the prayer may be reproduced in print or by other mechanical process; and that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions as shall appear to require it; and that

such Committee have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Mr. Batey, Sir Edward Campbell, Mr. Cary, Sir Charles Cayzer, Mr. Chater, Mr. Daggar, Mr. Clement Davies, Captain Alan Graham, Sir Percy Hurd, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest Makins, Mr. W. Roberts, Mr. Marcus Samuel, Mr. Annesley Somerville, and Mr. Viant nominated Members of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered,
That Three be the quorum."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in the arrangements for the Report of Debates and to inquire into the expenditure on stationery and printing for this House and the public services generally.

Sir Reginald Clarry, Sir Francis Fremantle, Mr. Hall-Caine, Mr. Lunn, Dr. George Morrison, Mr. Naylor, Mr. F.O. Roberts, Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter, Mr. Graham White, and Mr. Charles Williams nominated Members of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time.

Ordered,
That Three be the quorum."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

The remaining Orders of the Day were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.